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
137,061 - 137,080 of 224,695 Comments Last updated 10 min ago

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142630
Dec 8, 2012
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>What doesn't need correction will not be corrected.
And, apparently, what does need correction won't be.

No rational person can believe the bible is without error.

Unless he's never read it.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142631
Dec 8, 2012
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Good girl.
You're confused.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142632
Dec 8, 2012
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Nah, cro-magnum is condoms for crows.
Probably too big for you.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142633
Dec 8, 2012
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Ya, that's what you athiests say but not one of your assertions in valid.
True.

But you have an unnecessary space.

And you left out "is".

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142634
Dec 8, 2012
 
Think About It wrote:
<quoted text>Didn't know you wore a helmet, my bad!
Only on my Harley.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142635
Dec 8, 2012
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>blacklagoon
Citation, please.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142636
Dec 8, 2012
 
Dumb@ss you still to this day argue that Catholics do not believe in Jesus. I mean holy fck if you are unable to grasp that Catholics are Christians you ar certainly unable to understand most of what is posted here.

So again what church do you belong to? Some holy roller idiots yes?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, that's what you athiests say but not one of your assertions in valid.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142637
Dec 8, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Dumb@ss you still to this day argue that Catholics do not believe in Jesus. I mean holy fck if you are unable to grasp that Catholics are Christians you ar certainly unable to understand most of what is posted here.
So again what church do you belong to? Some holy roller idiots yes?
<quoted text>
Our Lady of Perpetual Motion

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142638
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
And, apparently, what does need correction won't be.
No rational person can believe the bible is without error.
Unless he's never read it.
The Bible doesn't need correction & is above your atheistic understanding.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142639
Dec 8, 2012
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably too big for you.
I'm hung like a mouse, just not as thick.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142640
Dec 8, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Dumb@ss you still to this day argue that Catholics do not believe in Jesus. I mean holy fck if you are unable to grasp that Catholics are Christians you ar certainly unable to understand most of what is posted here.
So again what church do you belong to? Some holy roller idiots yes?
<quoted text>
When have I ever once said that Catholics don't believe in Jesus?

Again, I don't go to church...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142641
Dec 8, 2012
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
But you have an unnecessary space.
And you left out "is".
That's it? That's all you got?

Grammatical errors?

Nice...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142642
Dec 8, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee poly I thought it was based on observation , evidence or
empirical data ?
Yes, those also. The point is that no general laws are held based on faith. It is always possible that new evidence will require modification or overhaul of the system. Now, if the system has worked well, it is likely that any new system will agree at those points where the old system worked (it would have to).

The strength of the scientific method comes from the fact that scientific hypotheses have to make definite predictions about new observations. if there are two competing ideas, find a place where they make measurably different predictions and go to the real world and see which is wrong and which is right within the error bars. This will allow the rejection of at least one of the competing ideas. As an idea successfully meets more and more challenges, we get more confidence in it. Eventually it gets the status of a theory and not just of a hypothesis.

The key is that a hypothesis must make a prediction *before* the observations and be definite enough to allow rejection of the hypothesis if the prediction is wrong. This is the essence of falsifiability: if the hypothesis is wrong, there is some test that will show it wrong.

So I ask the creationists and IDers out there: make a prediction of an observation that can be made. Make this prediction such that if the observation goes against the prediction, you are willing to give up your viewpoint. Make sure the prediction is not of something that has already been observed.

For added points, make the prediction one that is completely inconsistent with the current standard theories (and that even those holding the standard view will agree is inconsistent with the standard theory).

I will bet that nobody on the creationist/ID side will rise to meet this simple test of being a scientific theory. the reason: creationism and ID are not scientific theories.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142643
Dec 8, 2012
 
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, possibly.
They can hold that it is unconstitutional for a state to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
The problem is that even Ginsburg has said it is a bad time to bring the matter up and that even the liberals may not vote the way we might predict.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142644
Dec 8, 2012
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's it? That's all you got?
Grammatical errors?
Nice...
IF you applied his recommended edits, you would end up with -

"Ya, that's what you atheists say but not one of your assertions IS INVALID."
Think About It

Magalia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142645
Dec 8, 2012
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, those also. The point is that no general laws are held based on faith. It is always possible that new evidence will require modification or overhaul of the system. Now, if the system has worked well, it is likely that any new system will agree at those points where the old system worked (it would have to).
The strength of the scientific method comes from the fact that scientific hypotheses have to make definite predictions about new observations. if there are two competing ideas, find a place where they make measurably different predictions and go to the real world and see which is wrong and which is right within the error bars. This will allow the rejection of at least one of the competing ideas. As an idea successfully meets more and more challenges, we get more confidence in it. Eventually it gets the status of a theory and not just of a hypothesis.
The key is that a hypothesis must make a prediction *before* the observations and be definite enough to allow rejection of the hypothesis if the prediction is wrong. This is the essence of falsifiability: if the hypothesis is wrong, there is some test that will show it wrong.
So I ask the creationists and IDers out there: make a prediction of an observation that can be made. Make this prediction such that if the observation goes against the prediction, you are willing to give up your viewpoint. Make sure the prediction is not of something that has already been observed.
For added points, make the prediction one that is completely inconsistent with the current standard theories (and that even those holding the standard view will agree is inconsistent with the standard theory).
I will bet that nobody on the creationist/ID side will rise to meet this simple test of being a scientific theory. the reason: creationism and ID are not scientific theories.
You can't get something from nothing.

Now what scientific method would you use to prove the number 5?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142646
Dec 8, 2012
 
Think About It wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't get something from nothing.
Now what scientific method would you use to prove the number 5?
I wouldn't. The number 5 is an abstract concept in a formal system. As such, it has nothing to do with the 'real world'(as opposed to our models of that world).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142647
Dec 8, 2012
 
Think About It wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't get something from nothing.
Which is why observations are required.
Think About It

Magalia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142648
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't. The number 5 is an abstract concept in a formal system. As such, it has nothing to do with the 'real world'(as opposed to our models of that world).
So even though you can't prove the number 5 by scientific methods, the number 5 does exist.
Think About It

Magalia, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#142649
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why observations are required.
Have you observed something coming from nothing?

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.

16 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... 48 min CunningLinguist 1,288
Introducing The Universal Religion 59 min CunningLinguist 738
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 1 hr Reason Personified 33
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Reason Personified 267
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Patrick 21,412
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr Moonie 854
Atheists on the march in America (Aug '09) 2 hr John 70,967
•••
•••