Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256560 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

#158369 Mar 4, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
All evidence demonstrates no such thing.

"The error introduced by emotion and philosophy is generally one of exaggerating the force of the facts to settle issues which they do not, and possibly will never, settle." -Buck B. Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158370 Mar 4, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>

Yeah, it's a very useful tool.


<looking downward> Thanks, maam.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158371 Mar 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
I challenge any Topix atheist to prove ANY true chaos in this existence. Not apparent, which would just be a result of not knowing everything involved, but true unadulterated chaos.
Such would HAVE to exist to support the contention we arose by random chance.
They will say it is not "random".

Yet it is.

The closest thing to chaos I can come up with is when Daddy had a 500lb boar hog with tusks that got a automobile spring stuck in its throat and Daddy had me tackle it in a big mudhole and pull out the spring.

After about 20 minutes, we were both covered with blood and hog shit.

...Good times.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#158372 Mar 4, 2013
Ah, the mysteries of the universe, and the pondering of such. So many of them. But the really , really burning one is..

Can a Topix atheist evolve into an intelligent and rational being?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#158373 Mar 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
We knowing meteor impacts can create amino acids is a definitive piece of evidence also. Not as much as the whole panspermia theory but a piece of evidence that abiogenesis is feasible.
But the deep ocean vents , extremophiles, the deep Earth bacteria
the knowledge brought by the Miller/Urey Experiment research into RNA
and (Im sure you know loads more are all hints that abiogenesis took place.
I know I'm not telling you anything , but this isn't really for you but to add to your post as to what evidences there are of it.
Of course primitive cells may have come via panspermia also, but the possibility is much greater with the knowledge of all these things. BTW hiya hiding we missed your presence.:)
Cheers! Missed you too :)

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#158374 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Now I see why you're getting it backwards. You're assuming that the theory of evolution can only exist if abiogenesis is correct. That's a false assumption.

As it stands, abiogenesis isn't demonstrated yet, but evolution remains the framework theory of the biological sciences - because it provides an explanatory model that testable and disprovable hypotheses can be drawn.

That part can exist regardless of our knowledge or confirmation about abiogenesis - it's unlinked, except in a meta-theoretical way.

But, yes, if the contemporary iteration of evolutionary theory is accurate, then abiogenesis must describe how life started. That doesn't mean that we can't use our current theory of evolution to explain what we observe about ongoing genetic processes in living creatures, though - since nothing in the theory of evolution relies upon a theory of abiogenesis. No part of evolutionary theory works like this:

1. from abiogenesis we get X.
2. X, therefore Y process in evolution.
3. If we don't know X, we can't understand how species change through Y.

This is why, incidentally, your metaphor doesn't quite work. The theory of evolution is more like a river that we haven't reached the source of. We know there is a source, and we have a pretty good guess as to what it is, but we don't need to know that source to explain how the river flows. To do that, we just measure the water in front of us.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#158375 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
<looking downward> Thanks, maam.
Yeah, it's a very big, very scary tool.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#158376 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
They will say it is not "random".
Yet it is.
The closest thing to chaos I can come up with is when Daddy had a 500lb boar hog with tusks that got a automobile spring stuck in its throat and Daddy had me tackle it in a big mudhole and pull out the spring.
After about 20 minutes, we were both covered with blood and hog shit.
...Good times.
The only time chaos can occur is when your head bounces off too many walls, and then it is confusion, and not real chaos.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#158377 Mar 4, 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-228...

Ah, maybe women will become women again.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#158378 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but I did walk into an airplane propeller once.
Bad job, science.
I was also dragged behind a truck with an internal combustion engine once.
Bad boy, science!
I also had electroshock treatments 21 times in one month.
Bad, bad, bad boy, science. <wagging finger>
My friend bought this chemical compound to attract deer, and rubbed it all over himself. Then a big buck deer tried to fuck him.
Bad, bad, bad boy, Mr. Science.
We best just toss science out the window - look how awful it is to you!

Shoot it, Buck, shoot it!!

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#158379 Mar 4, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I see why you're getting it backwards. You're assuming that the theory of evolution can only exist if abiogenesis is correct. That's a false assumption.
As it stands, abiogenesis isn't demonstrated yet, but evolution remains the framework theory of the biological sciences - because it provides an explanatory model that testable and disprovable hypotheses can be drawn.
That part can exist regardless of our knowledge or confirmation about abiogenesis - it's unlinked, except in a meta-theoretical way.
But, yes, if the contemporary iteration of evolutionary theory is accurate, then abiogenesis must describe how life started. That doesn't mean that we can't use our current theory of evolution to explain what we observe about ongoing genetic processes in living creatures, though - since nothing in the theory of evolution relies upon a theory of abiogenesis. No part of evolutionary theory works like this:
1. from abiogenesis we get X.
2. X, therefore Y process in evolution.
3. If we don't know X, we can't understand how species change through Y.
This is why, incidentally, your metaphor doesn't quite work. The theory of evolution is more like a river that we haven't reached the source of. We know there is a source, and we have a pretty good guess as to what it is, but we don't need to know that source to explain how the river flows. To do that, we just measure the water in front of us.
I was under the impression basic evolution as you describe has been taught for quite a while in schools.

The issue, as I pointed out earlier, is the introduction of abiogenesis combined with the BBT as the "likely" scenario of our existential beginnings to children in their formative years. Which, BTW, will negate anything in your social science classes.

Default atheist indoctrination, and forced conflict between generations in their spiritual beliefs. Social engineering by atheists.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158380 Mar 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
The only time chaos can occur is when your head bounces off too many walls, and then it is confusion, and not real chaos.
Agreed.

I mentioned I have a piece of beer bottle glass and a link from a motorcyle chain embedded in my head.

Do you think the events causing that are random?

The glass was put there at Club 68 in Lebanon, KY. The chain link came in the Brickyard - a housing project in Birmingham where I was robbing drug dealers with no gun.

Random or designed?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#158381 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
I mentioned I have a piece of beer bottle glass and a link from a motorcyle chain embedded in my head.
Do you think the events causing that are random?
The glass was put there at Club 68 in Lebanon, KY. The chain link came in the Brickyard - a housing project in Birmingham where I was robbing drug dealers with no gun.
Random or designed?
Kinda dumb in both cases?

:-)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#158382 Mar 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I was under the impression basic evolution as you describe has been taught for quite a while in schools.
The issue, as I pointed out earlier, is the introduction of abiogenesis combined with the BBT as the "likely" scenario of our existential beginnings to children in their formative years. Which, BTW, will negate anything in your social science classes.
Default atheist indoctrination, and forced conflict between generations in their spiritual beliefs. Social engineering by atheists.
They define atheism as "no belief".

So we all start as atheists, then some go astray.

Nice setup, huh? You can win any argument if you get to decide the meaning of terms, right?

My dog, Mongo, has no beliefs.

He eats his own shit.

I'm convinced, given this evidence, that he is an atheist.
blacklagoon

Jamaica Plain, MA

#158383 Mar 4, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think is behind all of this attempted ridicule of religion is about?
I swear. I can't help but think pulling that trumpet from your lips and applying force with it about your head and shoulders would contribute a lot to your understanding of physics and reality. It would just have to shake some cobwebs loose.
I think it's about making major decisions based on unsupported beliefs. Shaping an education system based on myths and magic rather than reality. My understanding of physics and reality go a long way in my belief that most probably no God thing exists.
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#158384 Mar 4, 2013
Whatever your views on creation, Evolution is a fact.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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

#158385 Mar 4, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>I think it's about making major decisions based on unsupported beliefs. Shaping an education system based on myths and magic rather than reality. My understanding of physics and reality go a long way in my belief that most probably no God thing exists.
For the life of me, I can't really remember much of any religious indoctrination in school. Lot's of political, but almost no religious other than golden rule sort of thing.

I think you guys are a little unbalanced.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#158386 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like my cup of tea.
Where is the meeting?
Would do me good to knock somebody's head through the rim of his ass.
Ummm. Pardon me for getting sentimental.
LMAO! No need to apologize. You're on point.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#158387 Mar 4, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
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.
Is that a fact?

Are you certain?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#158388 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.
That post exemplifies an example of a run-on sentence.

Holy crap.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Chimney1 43,232
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr AmericanPagan 21,175
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Eagle 12 18,569
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 8 hr Eagle 12 10,051
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 8 hr Eagle 12 753
A Universe from Nothing? 8 hr Into The Night 538
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) 9 hr Patrick 465
More from around the web