Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 254965 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

#158346 Mar 4, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>So your worried about something that MAY be taught, not what is presently taught!! Do you have some indication that school systems throughout the country are aggressively moving in that direction?
Do you agree that a biology class should be taught that from complex chemicals Amino Acids can be formed, the building blocks for life? Or should we withhold this information from the students because of the implications?


How 'bout teaching them that, search as they may, no scientist has ever found one spec of evidence that abiogenesis can occur or has occured in the history of known time, and current evolution theory depends on it?

I realize it will be hard to squeeze that in between lessons on Global Warming and Al Gore's movie.

The kids already think Global Warming caused that jellyfish to kill Steve Irwin - the crocodile hunter.

They reported on the news that Global Warming caused the recent flu outbreak.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158347 Mar 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Stupid, moronic, brain dead Topix atheists.
SCIENCE IS ONLY THE STUDY OF HOW THINGS ARE PUT TOGETHER AND HOW THEY WORK. NOT HOW IT ALL STARTED.
Who in the hell told you idiots it was a religion?
There is one HUGE impediment to your innermost desire to be the superstars of the universe and all of existence.
Reality.
Science is a religion to them, or at least a tool.

They think if they can reduce everything to its smallest piece of material, then there is nothing they cannot see or understand.

Once that accomplished, they can be the gatekeepers - tell you and I how it is and what we have to do.

It is Utopian. Just like liberalism. No wonder atheism, liberalism, materialism, communism, and pop-science intersect so broadly.

A communist is just a liberal with a gun.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#158348 Mar 4, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>So, you want to play the ever receding game eh. Abiogenesis needs complex Chemicals and energy......you..Who created those chemicals and the energy/.........Me...they are part of the universe.....you who created the universe?....me the universe has always existed.......you...The big bang proves you wrong....Me....muli-universes with the BB being a local event is possible......you show me your evidence for such thing......I the end you play the old GOD OF THE GAPS GAME. Its what you people do when backed into a corner. The issue always comes down to the simple point of where does everything come from. The answer....NO one on the face of the planet knows.
Then why are you preaching oh, it always existed, or it could be?

That is not a god of the gaps?

You are trying to totally disallow the possibility, which should be included in your religion there, of our being designed and created by something else.

We design. That is ample evidence something designed us just from our own experience. So logic would indicate you look for evidence of design in our creation, and it is there, but you fall back on random creation out of nothing and want to totally stifle any looking for that design. Your system introduces confusion and obfuscation to perpetuate the want to belief we are the superstars of all possible existence.

Your multiverses do not lend to this random creation.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#158349 Mar 4, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Clementia attempted to assemble so many straw men into such a small space I partly expected her post to self combust.
<quoted text>
foooooooooooooom! whooooosh!

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, look at them burn, mommie!

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#158350 Mar 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue was teaching random abiogenesis as the sole reason for our existence. No deities or intelligent designers. All based upon conjecture.
I didn't think you would be smart enough to realize how that establishes an official declaration of atheism as the state religion.
You are kind of being arrogant when you assume that some design just really really had to happen so that you could exist.

That you could be sooooooo smart as to figure out that you've been designed, this whole universe was designed, just so that you could be here - wow, what a joyful, happy feeling!

Want some cotton candy?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158351 Mar 4, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>EVOLUTION...Hereditary changes in a population over MANY generations!!!! Are you telling me this is NOT a fact!!!!
Bacteria that "evolve" to become resistant to antibiotics is NOT a fact????
Insects that "evolve" to become resistant to insecticides is NOT a fact?????
Do you now deny these FACTS?
1.) That all major life forms now on the Earth were NOT at all present in the past. There were NO birds or mammals 250 million years ago.
2.) That major life forms of the past are no longer living. All living things came from previously living forms. Therefore, ALL present life forms arose from ancestral forms that were different.
No person who pretends to understand the natural world can deny these FACTS any more than they can deny the Earth is round, spins on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
"Hereditary changes in a population over generations" is evolution?

I am changed hereditarily from the two parents that conceived.

No evolution was involved. As this is repeated, the same occurs over many generations.

No evolution necessary.

Antibiotic resistance does not require evolution. It is natural selection, or artificial selection.

You prove my point. Thanks.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#158352 Mar 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
They started it!
<quoted text>
Interesting.
Plus, you guys have anime & chopsticks.
And cosplay. I suspect you might just be into it :)

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#158353 Mar 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It's like a life long orgy with one person.
Uhm......errrrr....ahhh...bett er pick that partner right then!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158354 Mar 4, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>EVOLUTION...Hereditary changes in a population over MANY generations!!!! Are you telling me this is NOT a fact!!!!
Bacteria that "evolve" to become resistant to antibiotics is NOT a fact????
Insects that "evolve" to become resistant to insecticides is NOT a fact?????
Do you now deny these FACTS?
1.) That all major life forms now on the Earth were NOT at all present in the past. There were NO birds or mammals 250 million years ago.
2.) That major life forms of the past are no longer living. All living things came from previously living forms. Therefore, ALL present life forms arose from ancestral forms that were different.
No person who pretends to understand the natural world can deny these FACTS any more than they can deny the Earth is round, spins on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
...almost forgot.

The earth is not round.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#158355 Mar 4, 2013
Poor lackloony.

One day he may realize those staccatos he's been blowing through his ideological trumpet were not the result of his control of his own breathing, but of the air being pumped up his ass by others.

How did you like that as a colorful allegory?:-)

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#158356 Mar 4, 2013

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158357 Mar 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Poor lackloony.
One day he may realize those staccatos he's been blowing through his ideological trumpet were not the result of his control of his own breathing, but of the air being pumped up his ass by others.
How did you like that as a colorful allegory?:-)
Not bad.

BlackBuffoon plays a one-hole trumpet.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#158358 Mar 4, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You are kind of being arrogant when you assume that some design just really really had to happen so that you could exist.
That you could be sooooooo smart as to figure out that you've been designed, this whole universe was designed, just so that you could be here - wow, what a joyful, happy feeling!
Want some cotton candy?
That was a totally irrational attempt to deflect.

But what do you expect from a chick with your username and an avatar of a girl with a gun between her legs?

Psycho chicks can be fun, but not when they are armed.:-)

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#158359 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
First, even Hiding admitted abiogenesis is "necessary" for current evolutionary theory.
Second, ID is not rooted in anything supernatural.
In other words, something undiscovered and unknown to exist is necessary for evolution, but not for ID.
You're still getting it backwards - and kind of misquoting me.

I wrote that abiogenesis is a necessary prediction of our sciences.

That's quite different than what you're writing above. A "necessary prediction." That's important. Not a "necessary foundation." That would be incorrect and lead to the incorrect conclusion that you arrive at.

I'm sure you understand this, but I'll go on since I have the white space here.

Let's pretend that ID is 100% correct in that a designer is at work. In that case, and the designer was necessary for starting life, you'd still get evolution taking place afterwords - why you ask? Well, Buck, I know you don't ask that, since you already get that, but it's b/c of mutation and natural selection.

Whenever you have new sources of genes plus scarce resources and over-production of offspring, you're going to have natural selection, designer or no.

Want to see that again, but explicit? Whenever you have:

1. new sources of genes
2. scarce resources
3. overproduction of offspring and therefore you get:

4. competition for those resources and hence:

5. differential survivability and reproduction, you're going to have:

Natural Selection.

However, since our sciences are materialist - monist - they predict abiogenesis. They do not rest on abiogenesis as you write above, but they predict it. That's a very important difference than what you're claiming. Hence, your conclusion is incorrect.

And why do they predict abiogenesis, you ask? Well, they can only work if they test what is measurable and not whatever we dream up. Humans can dream up so many untestable things - and, when you do that, you aren't creating knowledge but substituting intellectual laziness for knowledge.

Take the Greeks for example. They could have led investigations into why thunder and lightning happened but were content to not bother with testable, measurable, materialistic explanations and went for imagined explanations - that Zeus was responsible. Zeus isn't testable, so that story cannot be verified or demonstrated. It does not lead to a very good understanding of lightning, but silly childish stories like "Gosh, Zeus is mad today, look at that lightning!"

So, science remains materialist so that it produces efficacious knowledge and not children's stories.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#158360 Mar 4, 2013
But it could encompass many infinitely long spirals.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
...almost forgot.
The earth is not round.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#158361 Mar 4, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
How about they teach they *think* it happened this way.....?
I remember reading my science books in school & I've recently read my sons high school science books, they don't propose any other explanation other that "this is the way it happened". NOT "This is the way it could've happened".
It indocrinates the kids into what you believe.
RR, it's because all evidence demonstrates that evolution from a single ancestor occurred. I take it you didn't read Aero's interesting news piece. Here it is again: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

There is no compelling alternative. Seriously - what would you suggest as an alternative? That an old man dug up mud out of the ocean and made the earth? That the spirits found this garden and decided it needed tending? That some angry deity flooded it in water, killing everything except for an impossibly large boat of an impossible number of creatures who would all leave a genetic bottleneck behind?

The fact is you don't know enough. You actually think that science "doesn't know" which stories have or have not solid evidence behind them. Well, either learn more or admit you don't actually understand enough to comment on this issue and that you're being sensitive because you have a strongly held religious belief.

And, if you do read science, they are quite clear when they are being speculative - no one ever writes "We've proven, beyond any doubt, that X happened. Thus, we know Y did" in talking about the extreme past in science.

Here's an excerpt:

"Theobald says his most surprising results were "how strongly they support common ancestry." Rather than being disappointed about simply backing up a long-held assumption, he says that at least, "it's always nice to know that we're on the right track."

And that's from this number:

"By plugging these sequences into various relational and evolutionary models, he found that a universal common ancestor is at least 10^2,860 more likely to have produced the modern-day protein sequence variances than even the next most probable scenario (involving multiple separate ancestors)."

10 to the power of 2860! That's a smaller chance than there are stars in our galaxy! It's an unimaginably small chance - and you are suggesting that biological science teachers lie to their students and say "well, we don't know for sure. I mean, there's this chance of one over the entire number of stars in the galaxy, and planets, and moons, that we might be mistaken..."

Get real.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#158362 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is a religion to them, or at least a tool.
Yeah, it's a very useful tool. You don't have malaria, right? Probably never had it - or helminth worms. Well done, science.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#158363 Mar 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
That was a totally irrational attempt to deflect.
But what do you expect from a chick with your username and an avatar of a girl with a gun between her legs?
Psycho chicks can be fun, but not when they are armed.:-)
Someone is projecting big time - not a single rebuttal above, Dave. Just some attacks on my character.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158364 Mar 4, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still getting it backwards - and kind of misquoting me.
I wrote that abiogenesis is a necessary prediction of our sciences.
That's quite different than what you're writing above. A "necessary prediction." That's important. Not a "necessary foundation." That would be incorrect and lead to the incorrect conclusion that you arrive at.
I'm sure you understand this, but I'll go on since I have the white space here.
Let's pretend that ID is 100% correct in that a designer is at work. In that case, and the designer was necessary for starting life, you'd still get evolution taking place afterwords - why you ask? Well, Buck, I know you don't ask that, since you already get that, but it's b/c of mutation and natural selection.
Whenever you have new sources of genes plus scarce resources and over-production of offspring, you're going to have natural selection, designer or no.
Want to see that again, but explicit? Whenever you have:
1. new sources of genes
2. scarce resources
3. overproduction of offspring and therefore you get:
4. competition for those resources and hence:
5. differential survivability and reproduction, you're going to have:
Natural Selection.
However, since our sciences are materialist - monist - they predict abiogenesis. They do not rest on abiogenesis as you write above, but they predict it. That's a very important difference than what you're claiming. Hence, your conclusion is incorrect.
And why do they predict abiogenesis, you ask? Well, they can only work if they test what is measurable and not whatever we dream up. Humans can dream up so many untestable things - and, when you do that, you aren't creating knowledge but substituting intellectual laziness for knowledge.
Take the Greeks for example. They could have led investigations into why thunder and lightning happened but were content to not bother with testable, measurable, materialistic explanations and went for imagined explanations - that Zeus was responsible. Zeus isn't testable, so that story cannot be verified or demonstrated. It does not lead to a very good understanding of lightning, but silly childish stories like "Gosh, Zeus is mad today, look at that lightning!"
So, science remains materialist so that it produces efficacious knowledge and not children's stories.
Abiogenesis would have to occur before evolution.

As is obvious, abiogenesis is NECESSARY for evolution.

Put another way, life cannot evolve until life occurs.

As is obvious, abiogenesis is NECESSARY for evolution.

Put another way, a pig can't decide to dive into a salt-water ocean and eat nothing but seafood and fuck underwater until there is life.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#158365 Mar 4, 2013
Design versus oh it just happened.

The first is considered religious and imaginary by the proponents of the second.

It shouldn't really take a lot of smarts to realize which is more rational and scientific. But the Topix proponents of the second will fail that.

Let's take an approach here that will also be totally lost on them due to the emotional character of their very being.

I'm a technician. Cause and effect. Scientists are technicians, too. Cause and effect.

It's an approach to figure how things are put together.

You analyze and break down component parts of a system, including universes. You see the similarities of forces, and how they interrelate and interact, involved in the construction of said systems. It is very important in the physics world for these forces to follow laws.

You have a universe following these laws where you can predict what is going to happen. You have circuits and systems you design to follow these same laws to do whatever suits you.

Let that paragraph sink in a moment.

Now. A Topix atheist screeches "Oh, it just happened. Science says so!".

A rational person(technician, scientist, etc) thinks, "Hmmm....we(meaning humanity and its thinking,etc), are made of the same laws and thingies. I wonder....?".

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) 1 min Knowledge- 19,811
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 46 min Eagle 12 50,967
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 54 min Eagle 12 11,678
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 1 hr Eagle 12 9,613
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 2 hr Patrick 4,259
Religion Down Suicide Up 2 hr Patrick 92
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr READMORE 29,547
More from around the web