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
152,101 - 152,120 of 225,719 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158225
Mar 3, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn you and your logic!
Sorry, man.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158226
Mar 3, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Eh?
"Life started from nothing out of the mind of a god."
...then...
"Still the same nothing out of nothing."
O_o
God isn't nothing...
He's your imagined being.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158227
Mar 3, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's assume I take your word for that.
Do you know if the universe, at its inception, contained properties designed with the propensity to produce life?
This would require, of course, some intelligence independent of the universe in space and time.
And if the elements and properties present in the exploding birth of our universe had this built-in propensity for life, how would the present picture differ, scientifically, from what we observe today?
I submit it would not necessarily differ at all. The possible exception might be the signs indicative of intelligent design.
But wait! Is that even an exception? Some conclude it is there.
Hmm.

You're introducing something of your own here - this "propensity to produce life".

What's that, and is there any need to assume one?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158228
Mar 3, 2013
 
Darwin's theory doesn't apply to everyone....
http://thechive.com/2012/08/31/darwins-theory...

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158229
Mar 3, 2013
 
Lmfao! Nope.

Anyways even if it was true which it's not, that was many moons ago fatboy. Now you are a butt ugly chump who has spent more time in mental wards screaming at hallucinations and sh1tting yourself than your imaginary football player ever spent on the field.

You aren't impressing anyone with your lies fatboy. Now get to the treadmill.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, thanks for the physical fitness advice.
I was a 3-year starting lineman on an SEC ranked team, and made the Cincinnati Bengals starting offensive line. I out-lifted everyone on the team, including the great Anthony Munoz.
Coach Bill Curry, who coached at Alabama, Kentucky, and played in the NFL commented to Sports Illustrated that I had, at 6'7, 315, "the most impressive football body he had ever seen - college or pro."
But I'll try your advice. To be in the position to advise me, you must be one hell of a specimen.
I tip my hat. Please don't hurt me.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158230
Mar 3, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, man.
ARRRGH!

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158231
Mar 3, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're confusing an outdated idea with contemporary science. That's cute.
Do you know what evidence is? Do you know what constitutes evidence for abiogenesis?
Why do you think science predicts abiogenesis? How do you think it's being investigated?
No, no, no and another no.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158232
Mar 3, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
To say "evolution has not been disproven" has exactly zero meaning. None at all. It is white noise.
It has the same meaninglessness as saying "evolution is fact". No meaning at all. Nothing is said there.
The reason for this is that "evolution" lacks a specific meaning. It can be employed as one of a flowchart of differing concepts, depending on which most benefits the proponent of the theory at the time.
Evolutionists Louis Charles Birch & Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal Nature:
"Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it."
Evolution is true. Evolution is false.- Both statements have the exact same meaning. Which is none.
False. To say that a theory has not been disproved carries meaning in science.

Evolution the observation is fact. Evolution the theory is theory.

Ehrlich wrote that in 1967. He's kind of right. To disprove the entirety of evolutionary theory, you'd need to observe some deity creating species, show a species or genes popping into existence for no discernible reason (or a magical one), show that resources are unlimited, etc.

But the details of the theory can be disproved and are tested for that. Hence, the theory changes as we understand more. The ToE now and 100 years ago is quite different.

The thing is, there are no competing theories in science. No competing ideas offer a framework with which to generate testable hypotheses - none.

I know you claim that ID is capable of that, but it can never answer the ultimate questsions of "why" except with "some designer did it." At that point, you're no longer doing science but speculative fiction.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158233
Mar 3, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
"proof" really is hard for you, isn't it?
No, that's not what I said to Buck. I discussed the situation with him from the point of view of his "IF" - if we can never demonstrate abiogenesis. That was where his discussion started from.
However, as I wrote, all our sciences predict abiogenesis. Further, biochemistry and molecular biology demonstrate it's the only likely explanation - did you read Aero's excellent news piece? Moreover, the biochemists are testing possibilities.
Abiogenesis can only be proved as a way the chemical building blocks can be combined. Just another technological/chemical/physics thingy of assembling matter. Just a link in the chain back to the big bang. It can never be anything more than a possibility until you can absolutely prove there was no design going back to the big bang.

I've been emphasizing how much the big bang is like a seed sprouting. Physicist don't have a clue as to what that hot dense whatever it was was originally arranged.

I posted a link a day or so ago about seed imbibition and a youtube demo of seeds expanding. There is an energy burst required when the seed fires up. That is your heat. The expansion is that imbibition, but instead of water, it is space, or some other aspect of the universe or beyond. There was a pre-set matrix in the big bang seed.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158234
Mar 3, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The current whale evolutionary paradigm is still not only wrong, but impossible.
Darwin may have been closer. At least he admitted he was speculating.
Nope. But please, explain how it is wrong and false with evidence.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158235
Mar 3, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The total of evidence for abiogenesis is currently..."0".
If we wish to be more precise, it is "0.0000".
That doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. It just means if it did, nothing in known history has provided any recognizable evidence.
That's not actually true. You're discounting all the information we have about how organic molecules form from inorganic molecules and how they self-organize. Hence variations hypotheses regarding abiogenesis can be tested.

Your biggest problem here is that your argument rests on abiogenesis not being demonstrated - it either can or cannot. But that's not how the research on it is being carried out. Rather, biochemists and molecular biologists are testing how organic molecules form, how they combine, under what circumstances, etc., to build a picture of what the pre-life environment of the earth looks like. And the knowledge of how these chemicals interact is growing.

So your position relies on the ignorance of the field and reducing it to a binary position. While the answer to the question "did live arise from non-life" can be a binary question, the research into that question is not. It's complex, multi-faceted and ongoing.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158236
Mar 3, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. But please, explain how it is wrong and false with evidence.
Don't hold your breath.

BTW Hi, how's it going?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158237
Mar 3, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct - mostly.
I think the ritualization of atheism is growing.
Look what happens at Christmas time.
Thanks.

Yeah. Ritual seems deeply human - I don't think anyone can fully get away from them. I suppose we should separate it from routine to have a qualitative understanding of human behavior, but I can't deny that many atheists seek comfort in rituals.

On of my supervisors writes about how scientists imbue their lab equipment with magic and include magical rituals in their lives - like knocking on the x-ray machine to get it to function and talking about computers as if they have cognition and emotions, etc.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158238
Mar 3, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
False. To say that a theory has not been disproved carries meaning in science.
Evolution the observation is fact. Evolution the theory is theory.
CHA-CHING!

Damn you.

But hey, that explanation makes a lot of sense to Redneck.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158239
Mar 3, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not actually true. You're discounting all the information we have about how organic molecules form from inorganic molecules and how they self-organize. Hence variations hypotheses regarding abiogenesis can be tested.
Your biggest problem here is that your argument rests on abiogenesis not being demonstrated - it either can or cannot. But that's not how the research on it is being carried out. Rather, biochemists and molecular biologists are testing how organic molecules form, how they combine, under what circumstances, etc., to build a picture of what the pre-life environment of the earth looks like. And the knowledge of how these chemicals interact is growing.
So your position relies on the ignorance of the field and reducing it to a binary position. While the answer to the question "did live arise from non-life" can be a binary question, the research into that question is not. It's complex, multi-faceted and ongoing.
BTW Have you seen this:-
http://isohunt.com/torrents/...

I think you might enjoy it.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158240
Mar 3, 2013
 
*sings*

I have "Blah Blah" insurance, so person come help...

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158241
Mar 3, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
Even the evolutionists allow for the possibility of seeding of DNA or microbes on earth - panspermia.
When you say "always existed", if you mean to apply that to pre-earth time, you exit the recognizable form we call "life", which is the subject of the science of evolution, and your statement has no relevance.
Further, you don't know if life always existed or not. You don't even know what "always" is.
No. Even the panspermia people accept that they're just moving back the time at which abiogenesis happened, and the location to somewhere else.

Unless you are a creationist-panspermia-ist and believe that God Created life on some other planet for some other chosen people and then it drifted here. That would be pretty ironic.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158242
Mar 3, 2013
 
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't hold your breath.
BTW Hi, how's it going?
Will you please hold your breath?

For like 10 minutes?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158243
Mar 3, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Indoctrination is to teach to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
You advocate teaching them that the answer is evolution, uncritically.
You advocate their indoctrination.
Your definition of indoctrination fits the teaching of religion to children.

I teach evolution and I teach my students to be critical of the scientists we read - there's lots of BS put out with the claim of evolution (like that only men "should" cheat and that women should be monogamous).

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#158244
Mar 3, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks.
Yeah. Ritual seems deeply human - I don't think anyone can fully get away from them. I suppose we should separate it from routine to have a qualitative understanding of human behavior, but I can't deny that many atheists seek comfort in rituals.
On of my supervisors writes about how scientists imbue their lab equipment with magic and include magical rituals in their lives - like knocking on the x-ray machine to get it to function and talking about computers as if they have cognition and emotions, etc.
What's Christmas like in Japan?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••