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.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#129456 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?
Plants are aware of their own bodies and of sunlight through chemical processes. When they get damaged, their ongoing processes are interrupted, and they produce more toxins.

Plants have immune systems that keep them from being turned into fungus, bacteria and food. These are largely ambient poisons in the plant. When plants do not have optimal conditions, they get invaded by pathogens.

The domestic plants that you mentioned have been shaped by humans over the generations to largely detoxify them - at least, to us. Because they're less able to compete with other plants, we have to take care of them and give them optimal conditions. That's called "weeding," fertilizer and pesticides. Humans take care of them so they can devote their energy resources to producing foods for us - we have selected them for food production at the expense of defense. It's human induced plant evolution.

Plants are not sentient like you and I are, but they react when damaged and they can communicate damage to other plants. When you cut garlic, it primes all the garlic around it to producing more garlic flavor, which is its toxin. It's the same with trees. When one gets invaded by an insect, say, it sends out chemicals that other trees pick up on - and all of them will produce more toxins in defense against the attacking insect.

Marigolds are pretty cool. They actually send out chemicals that attract wasps. So when a caterpillar is eating it, the marigold calls out to wasps "come here" as wasps parasitize caterpillars.

You don't believe me, look it up. Here's a simple explanation for you, and some examples in wikipedia:

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

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#129457 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
An excerpt, honey, Exerpt. Learn...
You removed key words from the sentences thereby altering his meaning dishonestly.

You don't understand that misquoting people by removing certain words to change their meaning is wrong? Are you in grade 5?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#129458 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....
No. It doesn't work like that. Species are basically loosely bounded gene pools. Genes make traits, right? Each generation has mutations in their genes that differ slightly from their parents. From one generation to the next, you aren't going to notice any difference. But these small changes add up and, over deep time, a species' gene pool will alter enough such that different morphology is produced. From the point of view of the fossil record, it looks like one species is changing into another.

But all that is really happening is that genes in gene pools are being altered, subtracted and added.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#129459 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?
That's not what Drew was saying. Yes, your misinterpretation is ridiculous. That's not how evolution works.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#129460 Oct 13, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"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?
Yes, behavior influences selection pressure. Humans utterly changed their selection pressures through the development of agriculture.

Since: Sep 10

Gonzales, CA

#129461 Oct 13, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
In a case in my city a couple of years ago.
What's wrong with your statement?

Huh?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#129462 Oct 13, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
A species is a collection of individuals.
"1
: one of a set of prescribed movements
2
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission
c (1): a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2): a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
d : something evolved
3
: the process of working out or developing"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evo...
Note the reference to process. Which in biological evolution is through the individuals. The way you are defining it is a magical poof between start and end process. Those genes got there somehow, Bubba. Unless Darwin sprinkled magic pixie dust. BTW, he thought evolution could be a process of a higher intelligence.
Individuals get mutations, but their genes do not alter in their lifetime. They simply live and die and possibly pass their genes on. If they do, they contribute to their species' evolution. If they get eaten by something else, they contribute to that species' evolution.

Individuals do not evolve. Individuals contribute to evolution. Individuals are not gene pools, except in extreme cases where their species is going extinct.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#129463 Oct 13, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweets, these words were taken right out of your reference. These are the words of creative imaginations of science.
{evidence to suggest that}
{might have given rise to the}
I see in the fossil record a horseshoe crab 500 mya. Todayís horseshoe crab looks identical. Some minor changes noted by biologist, ok no problem. Basically the horseshoe crab has remained unchanged.
The earth and the oceans have changed a lot in 500 million years. Yet the horseshoe crab remains unchanged even though itís environment was and is constantly changing.
That's b/c science doesn't talk in definites like religion does. We know new evidence can alter our perspectives, but you are unable to do so because of dogma.

You are hardly qualified to describe the fossil record - and you don't have a fossil horseshoe crab with you so you can determine its morphology and compare it to the extant species. You, for example, aren't looking at the feet properly. If you did, you'd conclude they were different species as the contemporary horseshoe crabs have different feet than those of their extinct relatives.

Different morphology in the size of the bodies, number of appendages, shape of appendages = different species.

All you see is a general class whereas the biologists use precise language and break the class into species categories. Hence your analysis is always going to be overlysimplified and meaningless.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#129464 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think that one mutated gene in one creature is equivalent to a species?
<quoted text>
And the "unfavorable"? lol
<quoted text> So the mutated gene is NOT evolution?
<quoted text> Except that part that "A mutation can appear in one individual"....
The individual with a mutation is part of the process of evolution, but the individual itself did not change. It was born with the mutation.

How come this is so hard for you to grasp?

Evolution is "allelic frequency change in gene pools."

Individuals are not gene pools. Their genomes don't alter during their lifetime, except to wear down and fail.

This is what happens when religion gets in the way of your basic understanding of biology - basic education, really.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#129465 Oct 13, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I still love you.
I donít know if you have ever gone fishing. The harder the fish fight. The more respect they earn by the fishermen. You are a fighter sweetheart and one day you will be a prize fish.
You are an idiot for writing the above.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#129466 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text> Right. Got it.
<quoted text> I'm following...
<quoted text> But not fact? huh
<quoted text> Wrong. I know with a 100% certainty.
<quoted text> couple of big words there...
<quoted text>
there's more of them big 'uns...
<quoted text>
you had me at hello.
<quoted text>
How can you explain to me what I already understand?
You believe you know with 100% certainty, but you are actually experiencing a subjective reality that does not describe an objective reality, because of your enculturation and observer bias.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#129467 Oct 13, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the point was, "life" can't come from nothing.
As you put it, matter is NOT a life form, but can come together to make something.
But not life.
One question: why are you believers so illiterate about science? Why is it so hard to grasp for you?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#129469 Oct 13, 2012
timn17 wrote:
I am becoming more and more convinced that you are running a gag on everyone here. Your posts are hilarious.
You go on and on about how science has gotten it all wrong, and then freely admit that you know next to nothing about the things you constantly dismiss out of hand.
I know enough to know a con job when i hear one. In courts regular people determine guilt or innocence based on testimony from people in Science. These jurors may or may not have special training in Science fields. It does not matter there. Poly comes along and prints there is no cause at quantom level. It begs the question, what is he not telling us? So we have to go and look it up and we do. Come to find out they is plenty he is not telling us. We post it here and it is either ignored or dismissed as Creation Science. From my POV it is legitimate peer review. If we had to depend on the selective statements provided here by atheists we would never get to the truth. Then you have hiding who says nobody understands unless they have had science training. Under that sccenario nobody could be a juror in a murder trial unless they had extensive science training if science evidence is part of the process. It's not the way things work. If you are saying life somehow came from non living through non intelligent (natural) means you have to do better than all the tap dancing and special pleading that goes on here.
To make matters worse, after you choose to simply ignore something that you don't even take the time to learn about, you chastise people for not taking the time to understand your personal myths.
That is in response to their jumping all over me because i have no science degree. They made it the issue, not me.
So let me get this straight - you expect everyone else to thoroughly study,
No.
and presumably *believe* your personal brand of religious belief (which is just one type out of many thousands, and for which there is no objective proof),
No.
yet you refuse to consider the ability of science to explain our universe.
My objection has more to do with anti theistic assumptions wrapped in science mumbo jumbo. It has to do with their tactics. To question abiogenesis is the same as being stupid, opposing science, opposing malaria treatment etc etc ad nauseam.
That's just absurd. To you, people are *blind* because they don't seriously consider something for which there is no objective evidence and instead choose to put their "faith" in a mode of thought that has actually proven itself time and time again.
People like you are a dying breed. Even most religious people have been forced to accept the unparalleled ability of science to explain things. It takes a particularly hardy case of brainwashing to produce an individual who can look at the totality of the evidence and still remain a biblical literalist. This is why I'm starting to believe (or rather, hope) that you are a troll. The other option is just depressing.
It is your atheism and lame explanations that are absurd. The selective conclusions. The rejection of counter points. Etc. Atheist have no interest in truth when it comes to God. They have their minds made up. Like cement heads. Truth cannot enter.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#129470 Oct 13, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But you also have not proved there is only one. And that was my point.
<quoted text>
Nothing happens to a muon just before its decay that makes it decay. There is no change in properties. That decay is, in this sense, uncaused.
In many ways, simplicity is more likely to be caused than complexity. The laws of physics lead to complex structures very naturally.
You are so FOS.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#129472 Oct 13, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Individuals get mutations, but their genes do not alter in their lifetime. They simply live and die and possibly pass their genes on. If they do, they contribute to their species' evolution. If they get eaten by something else, they contribute to that species' evolution.
Individuals do not evolve. Individuals contribute to evolution. Individuals are not gene pools, except in extreme cases where their species is going extinct.
Each generation goes through a survival filter. Encountering new organisms, diseases, chemical and other environmental conditions will require an innate ability to deal with them on an individual basis. Some will, some won't.

In the last less than 100 years human civilization has created a totally new environment if you believe we have been linear in development. Chemical, nuclear radiation, EM signatures, and new organisms we have to deal with that have arisen in a very short period of time. Very radical changes. They will not fade away.

How will your gene pool of the past deal with those? They are all over the planet. What will those that survive pass on down the line?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#129473 Oct 13, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So I guess I am just debating someone who is going to be a smartass and use childish cliches. And yet you wish for us to take you seriously?
I do not think anyone in the scientific community claims a fully formed leg came from a species that has no legs.
The way you explain this shows you have a cartoon version of evolution in your mind.
Welcome to the thread, Mike! I was happy to see you and Drew here. These ... religious posters are ... confused about science.

GK is just a troll. He acts like a satanist trying to make Christianity look bad, and he's obsessed with pedophilia, homosexuality and incest. Not sure why, must be in his background. Honestly not worth reading, a pretty disgusting person.

But you're welcome to try!
Imhotep

Shelby, NC

#129475 Oct 13, 2012
Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals.

It's our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me.

Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#129476 Oct 13, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>By this logic, it would have made it even more easy on the slaves if god had told someone slavery was an abomination and immoral?
Yeah you're right, if only the israelites would have listen to God, but as I said all throughout the the Old Testament they were known to be a stubborn hard headed bunch. You would think after being set free and being fed daily by God raining food down to them they would do as he says, but that's the way mankind is, stubborn and hard headed.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#129477 Oct 13, 2012
Imhotep wrote:
Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals.
It's our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me.
Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated.
Well said!

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#129478 Oct 13, 2012
Science, biology are wonderful fields of enjoyment, and a way to learn how things work. God has given us a world and a universe to explore, and as a Christian we should enjoy thw beauty we seee on earth and in the sky above.

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) 32 min Eagle 12 7,320
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 6 hr NoahLovesU 7,453
why Atheists believe in incest,pedophilia and b... 7 hr hpcaban 30
News Phil Robertson talks against Atheists 18 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