Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247442 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157036 Feb 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell him, kfcu htat tshi etanig rgin no mylans acef.
Easy for you to say.

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#157037 Feb 27, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Space is a carrier with filaments of matter forming "solid" stuff. Space permeates even those filaments. Our organized neutral matter and energy that comprises us and our thought processes are a tiny small part of neutral matter in the universe, and its energy, which is itself about only 1% of all visible matter, the rest being plasma, which is more energetic due to its charge imbalance.
There s a steady stream of plasma and energy from the sun to here in the solar wind. Average about 4 protons per cm3. That is linear to the sun, and perpendicular to the earth surface. It is like a steam of water flowing into us, though without the density. Essentially a direct connection for the transmission of energy of various frequencies due to its being mostly plasma. There will also be a return path of energy from here to the sun. This solar wind will interact with the charges it produces in the earth and any others produced on it. It is felt back up that stream from the sun. Electric and electromagnetic coupling between the earth and sun. Not a one way street.
The galaxies are connected also, but we don't really know what is going on there. There is also a energy bubble around our solar system sort of like a halo. It's anyone's guess what it is.
But if Susskind is right, it just maybe the entropy or all the information of every event that ever took place within it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157038 Feb 27, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Then in history class, we should teach them both the the Holocaust happened, but also that the Holocaust didn't happen.
What does it hurt if they hear both sides?
In health class, we should teach both sexual reproduction and Stork Theory.
What does it hurt if they hear both sides?
In chemistry, we should teach both the periodic table of elements and the fire/earth/water/air system of elements.
What does it hurt if they hear both sides?
Schools have a finite amount of time to teach students. We don't fill up that time with "sides" that experts in those fields have already dismissed as garbage.
The Holocaust is not a theory about what happened millions of years ago, and does not require multiple assumptions.

Also, ID accomodates evolution. ID advocates accept that evolution has occurred and is occuring. So it's not either/or.

You are an idiot.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#157039 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But what you know is wrong.
I have found no person on these threads who knows anything about ID except for the packaged, stacked, and stocked cliche's and putdowns found on your average liberal or atheist blog.
I spent 2 weeks trying to get IAnus to admit a book on ID in 1984 predates the Aguillard decision of 1987.
He would not admit 1984 came before 1987.
You ever seen an asshole doctor admit he was wrong? I haven't. And I've had more than average contact with them - given my electroshock and anti-psychotic therapy.
Buck Crick wrote:
I have found no person on these threads who knows anything about ID.
Here's why :
Buck Crick wrote:
I've had more than average contact with them - given my electroshock and anti-psychotic therapy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157040 Feb 27, 2013
Atheist Silurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion,they are not entitled to their own facts.
Intelligent design can't be demonstrated scientifically,evolutionary biology can and is.
Intelligent design is a creationist ploy to get religious superstitious bollocks into the science class,and anyone who can't see that is either willfully ignorant or downright thick.
You know less than nothing about Intelligent Design Theory.

If you could begin at zero, you would be ahead of where you are now, because you think you know something about it.

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#157041 Feb 27, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
That’s you personal opinion that you believe as fact.
This is going to be a big shock to you but the world is made up of other people that have opinions just as you do.
So in the sea of opinions your little drop in the ocean doesn’t make that big of a difference.
There are those in the science community that support Intelligent Design and there are others in the closet but they also secretly believe it.
Evolution is the only science that has a enforcement arm. If you are a scientist and you don’t believe some far out theory in Physics, no problem. Or if you don’t believe a theory in biogenetics, no problem. If you don’t believe a theory in space science, no problem. But if you don’t believe in evolution, your fired.
There is no belief in evolution, you can be educated in it and have understanding, or be ignorant and deny it.
This is like an argument with a child, if you keep asking maybe you will get a different answer. No Eagle evolution is not a belief, it is the study about what happened on Earth with life.
It doesn't answer if god created life, it answers what happened to the living creatures since the first known life existed here.

It wont matter how much you think it's a belief, and if your god shows up he would have to tell you it is what happened to life on Earth.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#157042 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an idiot.
1. ID was being presented BEFORE the court ruling you allude to, which is Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987. Namely, the 1984 book The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton (Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Iowa State University), Walter Bradley (Ph.D., Materials Science, University of Texas, Austin), and Roger Olsen (Ph.D., Geochemistry, Colorado School of
Mines).
2. ID is NOT ILLEGAL to teach. One judge ruled it unconstitutional in one school district in Pennsylvania. Judge John Jones III, who ruled in the case admitted his opinion "has
no precedential value outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania".
3. ID has no hypothesis about divine creation, and is inconsistent with Creationism, and is rejected by the largest organizations in the world who promote Creationism. Some of the leading scientific advocates of ID, including Michael Behe who has written 2 books on the subject, publicly accept human/ape common ancestry, which is a contradiction of the teachings of Creationism.
You don't know what you're talking about.
I do.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157043 Feb 27, 2013
Atheist Silurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if we take the notion of a supreme being that set the universe in motion and then let it evolve into the universe we live in now,that is not what the creationists will even contemplate, their goal is to introduce old testament genesis gibberish into the science class.
Intelligent Design theorists are not Creationists.

Which one are you against? Make up your mind.

If you don't know the difference, shut your stupid mouth about it.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#157044 Feb 27, 2013
Atheist Silurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion,they are not entitled to their own facts.
Intelligent design can't be demonstrated scientifically,evolutionary biology can and is.
Intelligent design is a creationist ploy to get religious superstitious bollocks into the science class,and anyone who can't see that is either willfully ignorant or downright thick.
What are you afraid of?

Kids might actually reject evolution?

If evolution can’t stand on it’s own merit and science then it can stand at all.

In that case you should be worried.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157045 Feb 27, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> There is no belief in evolution, you can be educated in it and have understanding, or be ignorant and deny it.
This is like an argument with a child, if you keep asking maybe you will get a different answer. No Eagle evolution is not a belief, it is the study about what happened on Earth with life.
It doesn't answer if god created life, it answers what happened to the living creatures since the first known life existed here.
It wont matter how much you think it's a belief, and if your god shows up he would have to tell you it is what happened to life on Earth.
Evolution theory relies on the origin of life being spontaneous abiogenesis. Darwin admitted that himself. To admit otherwise is to admit the non-necessity of the purely material sequence of events.

And evolution may or may not require belief, depending on which definition of "evolution" you are referring to.

There are about 9 definitions in scientific literature. The simplest is "fact". The more elaborate ones are speculative.

The elasticity of the term is what you are utilizing when you present it in black and white terms.

In other fields, that is called "propaganda".

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157046 Feb 27, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I do.
Last time I witnessed you elaborate on the subject, you did not.

I don't know if you've educated yourself since.

Specifically, you could not understand, or chose not to understand, that the Intelligent Design hypothesis does not postulate, nor needs to postulate, nor implies, nor alludes to, nor needs to allude to, a deity.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#157047 Feb 27, 2013
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you afraid of?
Kids might actually reject evolution?
If evolution can’t stand on it’s own merit and science then it can stand at all.
In that case you should be worried.
Since it's the framework theory for the field of biology, I'd say it stands pretty well. Now, when you come up with another theory to replace it, you may have a leg to stand on. I won't hold my breath though.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#157048 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But what you know is wrong.
I have found no person on these threads who knows anything about ID except for the packaged, stacked, and stocked cliche's and putdowns found on your average liberal or atheist blog.
I spent 2 weeks trying to get IAnus to admit a book on ID in 1984 predates the Aguillard decision of 1987.
He would not admit 1984 came before 1987.
You ever seen an asshole doctor admit he was wrong? I haven't. And I've had more than average contact with them - given my electroshock and anti-psychotic therapy.
Yep.

You spent 2 weeks in a pedantic exercise about irrelevant details.

We saw it.

But this doesn't give "intelligent design" any validity.

It's still a hoax even if one book came before the other or whatever it is.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157049 Feb 27, 2013
So stupid. You sure fight hard for the campfire tales of ancient desert nomadic sheep farmers who sacrificed goats while chanting to their dark god to be accepted as science.

Remember Michael Behe has said at the DI they always start each day with prayer. Very scientific.

Lol!
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution theory relies on the origin of life being spontaneous abiogenesis. Darwin admitted that himself. To admit otherwise is to admit the non-necessity of the purely material sequence of events.
And evolution may or may not require belief, depending on which definition of "evolution" you are referring to.
There are about 9 definitions in scientific literature. The simplest is "fact". The more elaborate ones are speculative.
The elasticity of the term is what you are utilizing when you present it in black and white terms.
In other fields, that is called "propaganda".

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#157050 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent Design theorists are not Creationists.
Which one are you against? Make up your mind.
If you don't know the difference, shut your stupid mouth about it.
Yes, they are the same culprits.

They're in disguise, that's all.

C'mon Buck, don't kid the kidder.

“The Edge”

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#157051 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy for you to say.

Sorry Buck , at least you wont try to control everyone with tyrannical laws. He/She/it is like the Bloomburg liberal
that wants to say I can't have a 32 oz coke if I want one.
I'm like the guy in this ........



I like a big fat cigar why?
I might suddenly decide I want one.^^
She/he it wants government to control everything.
It was about time

Redding, CA

#157052 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an idiot.
1. ID was being presented BEFORE the court ruling you allude to, which is Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987. Namely, the 1984 book The Mystery of Life’s Origin by Charles Thaxton (Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, Iowa State University), Walter Bradley (Ph.D., Materials Science, University of Texas, Austin), and Roger Olsen (Ph.D., Geochemistry, Colorado School of
Mines).
2. ID is NOT ILLEGAL to teach. One judge ruled it unconstitutional in one school district in Pennsylvania. Judge John Jones III, who ruled in the case admitted his opinion "has
no precedential value outside the Middle District of Pennsylvania".
3. ID has no hypothesis about divine creation, and is inconsistent with Creationism, and is rejected by the largest organizations in the world who promote Creationism. Some of the leading scientific advocates of ID, including Michael Behe who has written 2 books on the subject, publicly accept human/ape common ancestry, which is a contradiction of the teachings of Creationism.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Good to see you back..Buck

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#157053 Feb 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Last time I witnessed you elaborate on the subject, you did not.
I don't know if you've educated yourself since.
Specifically, you could not understand, or chose not to understand, that the Intelligent Design hypothesis does not postulate, nor needs to postulate, nor implies, nor alludes to, nor needs to allude to, a deity.
Deity, schmeity.

Intelligent design is a hoax, deliberately perpetrated.

Take it from the Catcher.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157054 Feb 27, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
Since it's the framework theory for the field of biology, I'd say it stands pretty well. Now, when you come up with another theory to replace it, you may have a leg to stand on. I won't hold my breath though.
Every scientist who works on Intelligent Design accepts evolution.

Their sin is scientific dissent on a few details.

To stalk and destroy dissenters is not the way science should be done.

The Darwinists' problem with ID is not because they see a threat to science. It's a worldview thing.
It was about time

Redding, CA

#157055 Feb 27, 2013
Didn't take long for them to pile on the attacks to discreedit you personally. I still doubt we see any of them respond to your arguments...Buck

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
Proof of God for the Atheist 21 min Uncle Sam 125
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 27 min NoahLovesU 12,669
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 2 hr thetruth 47,806
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr ChristineM 2,353
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 8 hr thetruth 14,715
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 13 hr thetruth 7
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 19 hr thetruth 21
More from around the web