Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258476 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.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137745 Nov 14, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean Judaism?
LULZ>...
No, you f_cking brick. I said Christianity..........

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137746 Nov 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhm...ah...ok, let's try this. You like medicine? You hate disease?
If yes:
evolution = good
creationism = bad
If no:
evolution = bad
creationism = good
So now you equate evolution to modern medicine?!?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137747 Nov 14, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>It's not really a hobby. Fetish would be the better word.
You love hearing about crabs?

Dude...

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137748 Nov 14, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
When I learn to speak Japanese I'm going to come train with you and we'll rule from the shadows.
I'm going to change my name to Shinobu Suzuki.
I tried taking a train to Japan.

I tried & I failed.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#137749 Nov 14, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t believe it’s proper to be trying to convert people on the job. Work is work and it should be about work.
None of us know this man nor have we worked at JPL. So all we know is what is in print.
BWAHAHAHAHA

Great dodge.

I happen to know something about the litigation, but I can't discuss it.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137750 Nov 14, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Preaching to your co workers about the majesty of jesus and the lies of the evolutionist cabal is a pretty good indicator of his inability to think objectively.
And would preaching to your coworkers about the awesomeness of evolution vs. the stupidness if religion be an equal indicator of objective thinking?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#137751 Nov 14, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Going with your statement,{It didn't fuse gradually. It fused in one go. After that, it was organized gradually}.
Where is the gradual and slow change?
This Chromosome #2 fusing is telling me there was no gradual change.
But one very big major change.
This defies what evolution has been teaching.
So when did this fusing take place?
Eagle...why does the Chromosome fusion have to be gradual according to evolutionary theory?

On the contrary, the fusion itself could only happen in one go. After that, evolution gradually changed it to what it is today (some mutations on the teleomeres, some rearranging of DNA).

If you know anything about meiosis, you can understand why the fusion had to happen in one event. If you don't know anything about meiosis, it works like this:

During meiosis, all your chromosomes are divided into two (non-identical) as one germline cell becomes two sperm cells (I'm oversimplifying). They recombine in the egg.

Prior to meiosis, the germline cells divide by mitosis - that breaks them apart at the centromeres, replicates each chromosome, divides the cell wall (with each half cell taking half the identical chromosomes). Then, meiosis and, if the sperm is lucky, recombination.

The division of chromosomes is done by enzymes. They act like scissors, cutting the chromosomes in half. During mitosis, that's done at the centromeres. During meiosis, that's done at roughly the halfway mark. Immediately after mitosis, different enzymes stitch the chromosomes back together. After meiosis, the stitching has to wait until fertilization with the egg.

The "stitching" enzymes will stitch anything they find. So if, for whatever reason, the chromosomal material couldn't get out of the way in time, the enzyme would include it in the stitching. It's a dumb enzyme, right?

That's what happened. In this one, extremely rare instance, the wrong chromosome was too slow in being moved out of the cell half. So it got stitched together, making chromosome 22.

That could only happen in one event. It couldn't happen in more than one event, b/c the event requires the genetic material from both parts of the now chromosome 22. Secondly, it's such an unlikely event that it would extremely improbable to have, say, 1/4 of a chromosome being attached and then, at some later date, another quarter and another. Third, we only find 2 teleomere fragments in the middle of chromosome 22, not a several - so, only one event.

Next, Darwin was wrong about many details about evolution. He is 160 years out of date. Sorry. Compared to what we know now, Darwin was drawing on chalk boards. Yes, he came up with the central theory, but he was wrong on the speed, didn't know anything about genetics, and added some garbage to his book that simply doesn't work.

The speed of evolution is only limited to the mutation rate and the kinds of mutations that can occur. That's it. When environments change very rapidly - say, a large meteor hits the planet - species either evolve or go extinct. If the mutation rate is slow and the species is a specialist, it's probably going extinct. If the mutation rate is high, it might be ok.

Last - what changes are you going to see in morphology with the fusion of the chromosomes? Why would you see any change in morphology?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#137752 Nov 14, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
BWAHAHAHAHA
Great dodge.
I happen to know something about the litigation, but I can't discuss it.
But Mike says you can!

Geoff? Frank? Tim? Uh...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#137753 Nov 14, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you equate evolution to modern medicine?!?
Should I start with the alphabet song and just work my way up?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137754 Nov 14, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhhh....
So the illusion of control was the TV made me change the channel... mhmmmm...
Or was it the allure of the remote control that demanded my destiny to watch a different show? er, uh, set of commercials...
Right.
Go play with your GW voodoo doll.
The basic consensus is (I think) that our decisions are made "for us" by our brain - then after the fact it appears to have been a conscious decision. "We" may still retain veto power over these decisions that arise from the unconscious.

There have been a couple interesting studies on this. Here's a summary of one:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news...

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137755 Nov 14, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
And would preaching to your coworkers about the awesomeness of evolution vs. the stupidness if religion be an equal indicator of objective thinking?
Who does that? If someone were to go around at work insulting people's religious beliefs, he/she should be fired too. However, I don't think there would be anything wrong with discussing a scientific theory. People shouldn't be so touchy about it. Does gravity upset you?

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#137756 Nov 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
But Mike says you can!
Geoff? Frank? Tim? Uh...
How do you tell the sex of a chromosome?

Pull down its genes.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#137757 Nov 14, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it ok for you and not me?
You presuppose that prayer doesn't work & go from there...
No, I have actually seen the reports, the complete ones, not the cherry picked ones. It has never demonstrated any amount of success beyond that of chance. You're just as well off tossing the dice or wishing.

Perfect example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_Prayer_f...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42705038/ns/weath...

Guess when it did finally rain, during the atheist convention, long after the prayers. I like this example because if prayer works, then your god clearly prefers the company of atheists.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137758 Nov 14, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You love hearing about crabs?
Dude...
Correction - I love hearing about eagle's crabs.
Serah

Wynn Vale, Australia

#137759 Nov 14, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
Going with your statement,{It didn't fuse gradually. It fused in one go. After that, it was organized gradually}.
Where is the gradual and slow change?
This Chromosome #2 fusing is telling me there was no gradual change.
But one very big major change.
This defies what evolution has been teaching.
So when did this fusing take place?
A few seconds after the big bang LOL

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#137760 Nov 14, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a crush on Dave, too???
Oh, no, competition!
Dave is mine!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#137761 Nov 14, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't know all the facts Hiding.
Here we have a established scientist that has advanced to the top.
Leading a team of other scientist.
He worked for NASA 15 years. This wasn’t a probationary employee.
Funny, you admit here that you don't know all the facts, yet you continually state things about the case as if they are facts. More importantly, you assert his story is fact and not just a grudge for being fired, slackers make all sorts of excuses when we fire them, it's not uncommon.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#137762 Nov 14, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
And would preaching to your coworkers about the awesomeness of evolution vs. the stupidness if religion be an equal indicator of objective thinking?
When you work in a scientific field, you have to talk about science anyway, that's just part of the job.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#137763 Nov 14, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Dave is mine!
Dave is yours. Dave is so yours.

Damn! Jedi mind trick again!

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#137764 Nov 14, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Dave is mine!
OK, here's a tough one for you: Dave or Eagle?

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
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 14 min Into The Night 6,083
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 16 min Nemesis 102
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 36 min 15th Dalai Lama 74,670
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 15 hr Subduction Zone 32,062
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 16 hr Dogen 4,040
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Wed John 4,951
News Why do public atheists have to behave like such... Wed Eagle 12 - 4
More from around the web