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
145,881 - 145,900 of 224,395 Comments Last updated 22 min ago

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151840
Feb 4, 2013
 
insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has no "truths". It has theories based on verified but inferential knowledge, grounded on unverifiable assumptions.
shhhh...
Tom Jones

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151841
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing besides the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, and 150 years of science work all supporting it.

But I guess that's not much compared to...a book that a primitive people wrote.
"THE CLAIM HAS BEEN made that where as acceptable evidence of microevolution exists, there is no acceptable evidence for macroevolution The microevolutionary changes conceded are changes in gene frequencies or genetically based adaptations, which can be demonstrated in short-term scientific studies. These include changes in the frequency of dark morphs in moths, and changes in the age of first reproduction in fish as the result of the selective actions of predators on fish.

Macroevolution, however, is seen as unsubstantiated by critics of evolutionary theory. It is not seen how a process of macroevolution could produce new higher categories of life such as bird, butterflies, and flowering plants, as well as any unique and well-developed structures they possess such as brains, wings, and flowers.

Macroevolution suffers, in this view, from unconvincing evidence, missing evidence, and counter-evidence. Deemed unconvincing is the evolutionary biologists' claim that the processes that led to observable short-term changes in the genetic complements of species (and the traits governed by these genes) also led over millions of years to bigger changes, greatly modified structures with new uses, and new kinds of organisms. Also deemed unconvincing is the occasional fossil intermediate-the odd whale with legs here and the reptile with feathers there.

The missing evidence, in this view, is explained away as gaps in the fossil record. The missing "proof' would have to be a chain from ancestor to very different descendent of adapted intermediates, not overlapping in time, each superior to its predecessor.

The counter-evidence for macroevolution is regarded to be the overlapping in time of presumed ancestral and descendent species. Other counter-evidence is held to be the apparent sudden appearance- suggesting creation-of new forms, and of life itself.

Given, finally, that the evidence for macroevolution is so bad, the reason that so many scientists stand behind it must be political. There is a struggle for cultural domination: Science or God, Evolution or Creation Scientists must exclude an actively creating or otherwise involved God because, if they didn't, it would mean the death of science. To win, scientists push the dogma of metaphysical naturalism, which states that knowledge can come only through the methods of investigation of natural science."
Tom Jones

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151842
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing besides the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, and 150 years of science work all supporting it.

But I guess that's not much compared to...a book that a primitive people wrote.
"How Incomplete Is The Fossil Record?
Darwin clearly thought the fossil record was very incomplete, and it probably is; the vast majority of species that must have lived on earth are not recorded in the fossil record. This isn’t really surprising. The chances of an organism becoming a fossil are slim, usually only hard materials are preserved, even then the dead organism has to avoid decay, scavengers, erosion by wind and rain, and must be covered in sediment and fossilised. Once a fossil has formed, over the millions of years following, the chance is very small that it will not be destroyed by; the immense pressure of the rock above it, the heat of the earth’s mantle below it, the heat and pressure as continental plates collide, or the processes of erosion which shape the earth’s surface! If a fossil does survive to the current day it has to be found and identified. Undoubtedly there are amazing fossils out there still undiscovered, certainly many new species of extinct species are described every year"
Tom Jones

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151843
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing besides the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, and 150 years of science work all supporting it.

But I guess that's not much compared to...a book that a primitive people wrote.
"All contributors to this debate agree that the fossil record is incomplete. Disagreements concern whether, or at what level of completeness, The fossil record is indeed incomplete, preserved fossils represent a biased sample, the discovery of fossils is not random and those found reveal only partial information about the original organisms.

These facts are perfectly true, but if they are applied to living organisms a surprisingly similar situation exists

Data from the fossil record are frequently ignored because they are known to be incomplete.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151844
Feb 4, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
It is quite simple.
The fact you and everyone else appeals to absolute morality, shows an awareness of that absolute morality.
There are transcendent laws that govern every aspect of our being.
We don't though. We all disagree on different levels. We all seem to agree on some things... but like i was pointing out with the hostage situation, some we disagree on. The funny thing is... nobody is bringing up these situations. Instead... the atheists are pointing out the immoral things in the bible and acting as if you would agree with them... and the Christians dodge that and tell the atheists that they have no way to be moral or that they are lying because their bible says so.... and I'm sorry but we are all full of it. None of us are rapists that i know of... something ELSE is going on and that is what we disagree with.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws of logic, morality and laws of uniformity.
Those laws cannot be accounted for as a product of humanity, as they are transcendent, they have to have a higher intelligent source (morality and logic demand intelligence as a source).
And those laws are in you and around you.
Please explain what "transcendent" laws of morality are and how you know this.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
As an atheist, you have no basis to account for them, yet you must appeal to them to argue your own worldview.
But what happens is the conclusion of those laws and the place they take a person, is something that our sinful nature wants to suppress.
As a skeptical human being I do not see any reason to believe in a god. This has nothing to do with accounting for morals. However, for whatever reason it may be, I find the thought of another human being unnecessarily harmed in any way to make me feel pain. I have empathy and wish for equality. I do not want to hurt anyone and i don't need the fear of god or hell to keep me from harming someone. If someone does need that fear... they need psychological help.
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
So on the one hand atheists operate on these laws (when sin does not obscure them) and appeal to these laws, but on the other try to deny them because of the conclusion they lead the atheist to...
The evidence is internal and external and that is why every man can and will be judged by God.
We all know...
But some suppress that truth, because they do not like the claim God makes on them.
What action could please someone enough to ignore being tortured for eternity assuming they believed they knew that was the consequence?

If anything i think if atheists really did believe in god... it would show how morals are higher than god. I would say... if Abraham chose not to kill his son... it would be a more moral action that obeying God.

How do you feel about that kind of rejection?
Would it be immoral of Abraham to reject god and not kill his son?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151845
Feb 4, 2013
 
Tom Jones wrote:
Given, finally, that the evidence for macroevolution is so bad, the reason that so many scientists stand behind it must be political.
Macroevolution has been directly observed in the wild as in labs.

The only reason Creationists reject it is because it conflicts with their fundamentalist religious views.
Tom Jones wrote:
There is a struggle for cultural domination: Science or God,
All the scientists who support evolution have wildly diverse cultural backgrounds: Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, nonreligious, liberal, conservative.

All the people who oppose evolution have basically the same background: fundamentalist Abrahamic religion.

But it's the SCIENTISTS whose culture is causing their position? That's funny.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151846
Feb 4, 2013
 
Tom Jones wrote:
<quoted text>
Data from the fossil record are frequently ignored because they are known to be incomplete.
Being incomplete does not invalidate it as evidence.

If I have a photo album with a picture of Mary in North Carolina on Monday, South Carolina on Tuesday, Georgia on Wednesday, and Florida on Thursday, that's good evidence indicating Mary took a trip from NC to FL, even if we don't have a 10 hour video documenting every mile she drove.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151847
Feb 4, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
God is self evident.
It is not a matter of assuming, it is a matter of opening ones eyes.
It is a matter of turning from the sinful nature you have, that is suppressing the truth in you.
The First Cause is not assumed.
The First Cause simply Is.
And thats why Gods name is:
I AM.
"First cause" can be a quantum fluctuation or a singularity exploding. It can also be the exhaust fumes of some space craft, or the formation of an atom belonging to some pond scum in another universe. Your assuming it's a god, and your specific god, makes you a failure at logic.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151849
Feb 4, 2013
 
Tom Jones wrote:
<quoted text>
"THE CLAIM ...
Plagiarizing is unethical...you must be a Christian fundamentalist.

It is a shame that you don't understand enough about basic science to see just how lame your argument is. I am sorry, truly sorry that you live in so much hate and fear of things you clearly can't even begin to understand.
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151850
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
PROJECTION..look it up...
there is empirical evidence otherwise we wouldnt be here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Why don't you just put up the wikipedia definition of vampire, theres as much evidence.

try looking up empirical evidence since you don't seem to have a clue what it means

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. Abiogenesis hasn't ever been observed , or PROVEN to create life , therefore your statement about there being empirical evidence is either the result of ignorance or your lying.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151851
Feb 4, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would you care?
You are an atheist, slavery and rape are perfectly acceptable in your worldview, as long as society comes to a consensus on the matter.
So I am not sure, why you would want to critique something you actually do not have a problem with as an atheist.
Of course you can reject atheism if you want, and turn to God, who is calling for your very soul, and then discuss with Him the issues you believe need to be dealt with in scripture.
But if you continue in atheism, you have no basis upon which to profess moral outrage on these issues...
Wow. Shocked again.

Am i summarizing this correctly?
He said that rape and slavery is condoned in the bible.
Your response was " why would you care?".

You didn't deny it or account for it or even try to pull the out-of-context (because you know its immoral so you have to account for it) card.

You instead tried to show that he is either in fact fine with rape or that he actually does believe in god and that is why he isn't a rapist who is ok with slavery.

This is a problem for you if the bible condones slavery and rape...

Which brings us right back to his comment to you and renders your entire response meaningless unless you do at the very least try to make an excuse for the Bible
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151852
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It is absolutely not lies that the evidence supports that life sprang from early Earth , and progressed in evolution to what we see today. There is absolutely no evidence of anything else, It isn't what I wanted to hear, it isn't what I cared to find , It is however exactly how it really is. There is no church of abiogenesis, there is no faith in the science, there is only evidence that shows it to be the way it is. It is not my problem accepting the truth, but it sure appears to be yours.
What evidence?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151853
Feb 4, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Account for intellect in an atheistic worldview.
You cannot, we both know it, because intellect is a gift from God.
As for intellectual ideas, how about telling us more about how rocks decided to form themselves into conscious life by sprinkling some magic fairy dust called "time" on themselves...
I thought intellect came as a trick from a talking snake that made us all born sinners. That is a horrible gift.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151854
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

insidesecrets wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has no "truths". It has theories based on verified but inferential knowledge, grounded on unverifiable assumptions.
It is usually someone of little understanding that would believe such. Or refute these truths,

Avogadro's law
Archimedes' buoyancy principle
Bernoulli's principle
Faraday's law of induction
Evolution
General Relativity
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Hubble's law
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
thermodynamics
Newtons laws
Ohm's law

but they are truths grounded by reality.
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151855
Feb 4, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It is usually someone of little understanding that would believe such. Or refute these truths,
Avogadro's law
Archimedes' buoyancy principle
Bernoulli's principle
Faraday's law of induction
Evolution
General Relativity
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Hubble's law
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion
thermodynamics
Newtons laws
Ohm's law
but they are truths grounded by reality.
Add biogenesis.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151856
Feb 4, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
What evidence?
All evidence derived from Discovery of the chemical origins of organic matter or the building blocks of life, Earths Geologic History, The Fossil Record, RNA/DNA,and The evolution of the biosphere itself.
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151857
Feb 4, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
All evidence derived from Discovery of the chemical origins of organic matter or the building blocks of life, Earths Geologic History, The Fossil Record, RNA/DNA,and The evolution of the biosphere itself.
Looking, looking, nope absolutely zero empirical evidence.Damn you tell a lot of lies. chemicals,matter, geologic history, the biosphere none of that even hints AT HOW DEAD INANIMATE MATTER CAME TO LIFE ON ITS OWN!

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151858
Feb 4, 2013
 
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you do.
To state any moral position is flawed requires you to substantiate your standard of judgement.
To refuse to do so is to admit the inability to do so.
I can critique your morality because I can account for absolute morality.
You cannot, so should not critique anothers position.
Until you can justify your own position, all you are doing is behaving in an arbitrary manner.
And we both know that is illogical.
By refusing to account for your own standard of absolute morality, you prove you cannot.
Put up or shut up...
No. You don't have to know all the answers to point out failure.

If x+21=28 and x+42=49.... and the problem was to solve x+64=?

If your answer was either "64,864,953,854" or "purple giraffe"... i dont have to know the answer to see you went wrong here.

Or maybe see it from our perspective...
If you saw my phone bill... and it said i paid $39.99 for 450 min... and i told you my bill shows the truth and i have 1400 min.... this is self contradiction... you don't have to have verizon to know something is wrong here.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151859
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Looking, looking, nope absolutely zero empirical evidence.Damn you tell a lot of lies. chemicals,matter, geologic history, the biosphere none of that even hints AT HOW DEAD INANIMATE MATTER CAME TO LIFE ON ITS OWN!
Oh, if that's your question then here's the evidence:

There was no life, now there is. Non-living matter had to somehow form living organisms.

It's just the "how" that's currently an unknown. No, we won't accept your made up "god dun it" answer, because that's still not an answer to the actual question and it's an assumption.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151860
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Add biogenesis.
Biogenesis is a truth yes , but it does not explain everything.
Thought it is a truth that nonliving matter does not spring to life, it does not explain origin. Nor does it refute it's having an origin
from nonliving matter. It only explains it is not a continual process. This law was to counter the idea of spontaneous generation,
when it was thought rotten meat generated flies.
So very misused by scientifically challenged individuals who would even deny evolution, which is also a part of biogenesis. Which does encompass these concepts,
Evolution
Mutation
Genetic code
Metabolism
Photosynthesis
Respiration
Carbon cycle
Oxygen cycle
Limiting factor
Ecosystem
.

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.

8 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
What does "Atheism" mean? 21 min Buck Crick 21
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 1 hr Patrick 388
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 5 hr richardfs 6
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 16 hr Liam R 21
Talking some sense into you people... 19 hr Cujo 27
Our world came from nothing? 20 hr Carchar king 243
Introducing The Universal Religion 21 hr Patrick 734
•••
•••