Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243379 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.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172470 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
A specific population can't be sustained by just a single pair. That much is true. But I'm not interested in sustaining. What interests me is how the process starts.

It would seem that you would need two creatures that have reached sexual maturity at the same chronological point in time, in the same location, that they would successfully mate and produce offspring that could also repeat this process. That's what interests me. Where or how do these two biological creatures come into contact at the right place, at the right time, with the optimum health needed to reproduce and carry on?
Go look deeper into how population dynamics works-- it's never just a single pair.

Species comes from populations and groups of individuals. By definition 'species' represents a group of individuals who are fertile with one another, and generally speaking, in contact pretty much all the time-- or at the very least, in the same general area.

If evolution is true-- and all the facts and information say it is-- then there never was a single pair of "first humans".

Any more than you can draw distinct lines in a rainbow, to separate the colors-- oh, you **can** but it's purely arbitrary. The colors gradually fade from red to deep ultra-violet, without any steps in-between.

Evolution of species is like that: gradual, tiny baby-steps from one minor change to the next.

Such that, across any 10 generations, you could still likely (using a mythical time-machine) take a random pair, and get viable offspring.

The more you separate the generations, though? The more likelihood of a genetic defect, and non-viable offspring.

Eventually, with enough generational separation, that the pair won't even be interested in trying to breed, let alone be capable of it.

There's no single event that separates the 1000-generation apart individuals-- there's literally hundreds of millions (or more) of microscopic steps.

All of which add up to: a different species. Even though they probably look very much the same on the outside.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172471 Jul 18, 2013
saidI wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they said two men no longer have it after the "transplant" not treatment.
Yes. It's unclear what happened-- but these men are not taking any anti-AIDS drugs, and haven't for some time.

And they continue to test AIDS-free.

The mechanism at work is not clearly understood: did destroying their own marrow (a required initial first step before receiving donor marrow) also destroy the repository of the AIDS?

Or was something in the donor marrow responsible for repressing the AIDS virus such that it no longer manifests in testing?

More study is going to be needed.

But it's welcome news.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172472 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
On what grounds is it a false claim?
1) that you have zero supportive documents

2) language studies do not show it to be older

Just for starters.

Wishful desires do not an argument make.
Roman Apologist wrote:
There is a growing number of scholars who are starting to take this hypothesis seriously enough to research it.
Desperate to find something to counter the current methodologies that pretty much show Paul's works are the oldest, and Paul's Jesus is Pure-Spirit?

Which destroys the man-god meme pretty much completely?

Starting research does not a conclusion make.
Roman Apologist wrote:
Does that mean we will eventually reach that conclusive verdict? No. But it does warrant at least a fair examination to determine the plausibility. If something is plausible, that means it's believable.
Anything is believable. So what?

Lots and **lots** of folk regularly put on hats lined with aluminum foil, to "block the orbital mind-control lasers".

That does not mean anything.

Reality does **not** care if you believe in it or not-- it's still reality.

And, reality is whatever is left over, after you **stop** believing in flat-earths, alien abductions, Santa Claus, etc.
Roman Apologist wrote:
The next step after establishing plausibility is to see if it's probable. I don't want to re-write history just to prove a point any more than you would want to. That would be dishonest. But if a historical hypothesis has some merit (plausibility) to it, why not at least investigate it?
Without a working Time Machine? There's little to investigate...

... seriously. This stuff is old, and well and thoroughly researched already.

Unless you can magic up a cache of original documents written by Jesus himself?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172473 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
How did you come to that conclusion? I'd like to know your reasoning for that. If we're going to debate this with intellectual integrity then it seems prudent for me to understand how you reach your conclusion with such confidence to make such a bold assertion.
Ummm... by reading the bible?

But also using modern word-pattern search features of electronic bibles, you can easily search for yourself.

Limit your searches to the books attributed to Paul.

Eliminate the ones that scholars consider to be "ghost written" by others, who were writing **as** Paul.(not hard to find out which is which--- sorry, I do not remember any longer, it's been many years here).

Now, search the subset of Pauline books for the word "savior" or "jesus".

Look at each of the results, and see how Paul describes jesus--**always** in spiritual or celestial-being terms.

Never as a mortal, human or flesh-and-blood.

It takes time, is all-- but the results are consistent.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#172474 Jul 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
And I do appreciate the long-distance free-thinking support you secularists lend to those of us who must live in the Land of Ostriches (faith==head-in-sand).
:D
Free thinking is in our blood :)

We have a small population of bible thumpers that wants the prime minister and his speeches with god bless sweden and most people just laughed at them (=

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172475 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Also, is it possible that you're giving too much weight to the issue of who wrote first?
No.

The oldest (first author) texts will be the closest to the events in question.

The more the events are separated in time? The less accurate are the stories---

-- or have you never played the game "telephone" or "gossip"?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172476 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Another flaw is to suppose that any person who existed is obligated to write something down to prove his or her existence. Are you obligated to write your own autobiography to prove you existed?
I'm not claiming to be "the savior of mankind".

Nor am I claiming to be a god of any sort.

Your Jesus claimed to be both.

I expect-- at a bare minimum of standard-- a **god** to be very aware of the up-and-coming issues, if he did **not** write down,**very clearly** the messages he wanted the future generations to know.

Anything less? Would be ...

... merely human.

Your description above? Is of a person who was...

... just a man....

..... and **only** a man-- not a god at all.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172477 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Your location reads as Tulsa, Oklahoma. It's the middle of July. You said you are self-employed in the air-conditioning business right? I remember how hot it can get in Oklahoma in July. I was stationed at Fort Sill in 1987. You seem to post a lot. Is business slow right now?
Hot-- damably hot, hereabouts.

100+ in the shade, most days. Humidity levels exceeding 70% in some areas.

And I **have** been quite busy of late. I just come inside to cool off now and again, when I am able.

And there's some personal health issues currently (not me-- but details are private) that are limiting my work this week.

Normally, I'm off by 8am, home by ... whenever ('til it's done)

This week's been unusual, for July.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172478 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I support theistic evolution. I know the hypothesis you're advocating, but it doesn't seem logical to me. There must be a point of origin. The entire existence of life didn't just spring into existence from nothing. And it didn't evolve from nothing.
The theory of evolution does not make those claims.

What you are complaining about is classic Creationist Myth (bs to be blunt).

Evolution speaks of life **after** it appears on earth, and how life evolved into it's present day forms.

The origins of life are currently unknown.

However.

Continued research into that area, has shown many interesting results.

*IF* you put the simple chemicals together? They automatically begin to self-organize, due to the simple laws of chemistry.

Given that life first shows up on earth about a billion years after earths' beginnings?

That is ample time to go from simple chemistry to self-replicating molecules.

Toss in another billion or so? And you go from simple self-replicating molecules to multicellular life forms.

Just as the fossil record seems to support.

There is no reason at all to invoke an "answer" which raise MORE questions than it purports to solve!
Roman Apologist wrote:
My hypothesis is this:
God exists outside of space-time. He created kinds of creatures that then started to change over a period of time. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think it happened in 6,000 human years. But I don't think it took millions of years either.
Then you'd be **ignoring** 99% of all modern science.

The earth is 4.something years old. Life shows up after roughly a billion years in, and mulicellular life, pretty much near the end.

That's not millions of years-- that is **billions** of years here.

Besides: if your god exists entirely outside of space-time?

He could not **possibly** interfere with space OR time.

That is what outside means.... if he is INside? He's subject to it's rules too.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172479 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
If God created everything, including space-time, then wouldn't such a deity be independent of space-time as we know it, and therefore be able to interject and withdraw at his discretion?
What created your god?

If you use special pleading to claim "always was", why not remove the overly complicated step, and say the **universe** always was in one form or another?

Why introduce an infinitely more complicated set of problems (god) which really do not answer the basic questions at all?

**HOW** did this god find the energy to create the universe?

If your god has **infinite** energy, that would overwhelm the universe, rendering it uninhabitable.

If your god has **limited** energy (see above), then that implies it has a beginning of some sort..

... and we are back to who or what created your god?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172480 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure that carbon dating is as accurate as it's made out to be. This isn't to say that it's chaotic or useless, but I think that it's like any other tool. It has it's limits. Like other tools, it can be misused. It can be misread. It can be either knowingly or mistakenly misconstrued. I'm not ready to dismiss it as useless, but neither am I ready to say that it answers every scientific question regarding age with complete unquestionable accuracy.
Your "either/or" challenge fails in that regard. I can hold both beliefs and still be honest in my analysis.
Then it's a damn good thing Carbon Dating is **never** used by scientific community to study fossils.

Isn't it?

Fossils-- or prehistoric bones converted into minerals (rock) are pretty much too old for the limited usefulness of carbon dating, which has a max of about 50,000 years or less (if memory serves).

The vast majority of fossils are **millions** of years older than **that***. Much too old for the very narrow carbon dating methods.

No-- carbon dating is best served for **archeology** to discover how old **human** artifacts are.

Fossil dating pretty much never depends on carbon dating anyway...

.. so you are objecting about something that isn't even an issue!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172481 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure that carbon dating is as accurate as it's made out to be. This isn't to say that it's chaotic or useless, but I think that it's like any other tool. It has it's limits. Like other tools, it can be misused. It can be misread. It can be either knowingly or mistakenly misconstrued. I'm not ready to dismiss it as useless, but neither am I ready to say that it answers every scientific question regarding age with complete unquestionable accuracy.
Your "either/or" challenge fails in that regard. I can hold both beliefs and still be honest in my analysis.
Do you have an idea how scientists figured out how old the earth is?

Hint: it has nothing to do with carbon dating.

Not even close.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172482 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
1) The subject must be observable.
2) The subject must be testable.
3) The subject test must be repeatable.
4) The testing process MUST BE HONEST!
Using all of the above?

Proves to 100%, that evolution is not only FACT, but that it began on earth BILLIONS of years in the past, with about 99% of the newest species only appearing since the last 500 million years ago.

More to the point?

DNA studies keep **confirming** these facts.

Evolution-- scientific evolution-- is fact.

There is no controversy. None at all-- in **science** circles.

Evolution is also **theory**(scientifically-spea king), which explains the **fact** of evolution.

To deny this?

Is to deny reality.

And reality does not care if you do not believe in it--

-- that is the nature OF reality.

There is **no** faith involved at all.

It just is.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172483 Jul 18, 2013
Religion cannot even get the gospels to match up.
Roman Apologist wrote:
Now we're getting somewhere. Why do you believe that only science can reveal truth? The scientific method can't solve or reveal every truth. For science to make a factual announcement about any event or process, there needs to be a foundational doctrine involved.

1) The subject must be observable.
2) The subject must be testable.
3) The subject test must be repeatable.
4) The testing process MUST BE HONEST!

Notice my emphasis on point #4? There's a very good reason for that.

I have two items of interest for you to consider:

1)In 1953, Stanley Miller tried to prove that amino acids can come about naturally. He used a constant flow of electricity to replicate lightning in the earth's atmosphere. But, lightning isn't constant, so that's flaw #1. Then Miller compounded his error by using the wrong gases. He used carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor which is no longer believed to be the atmosphere of early earth; flaw #2.

2) In 1997, Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin made a shocking confession in The New York Book Review:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science IN SPITE OF [emphases are in the original article] the patent absurdity of some of its constructs... IN SPITE OF the tolerance the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our A PRIORI adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 4, 1997.

So you see here my issues with trusting the scientific community with 99.9% certainty as you profess to. A respected scientist and professor admitting that the scientific method of the secular world is already rigged by an a priori materialistic philosophy. They're using their philosophy to drive their discoveries which is neither scientific nor honest. And if Stanley Miller knew that his attempt to create amino acids was flawed, then that's another damning account of atheism using science to conclude what it had already assumed. That seems like circular reasoning to me.

blacklagoon wrote, "You're making wide sweeping statements with absolutely no support."

I don't see how you can say I'm making sweeping statements when you claim only science can reveal truth, in light of these two unfortunate revelations as to the philosophical beliefs of scientists.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#172484 Jul 18, 2013
After answering several of your questions why am I not surprised you ran in fear when I asked you some questions?

I accept your surrender.
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you use the word "reliable" in this way? Let's go into philosophy of morality for a round of discussion.

Is it wrong to kill a child? Is it wrong to rape a woman? Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to cheat at a game or contest? Is it wrong to lie?

Science can't quantify or qualify the moral arguments. It can try to measure brain impulses through MRI, EEG, and chemical properties by blood and tissue testing, but that's only limited to the naturalistic scientific method.

Now you can argue that homo sapiens developed these moral ethics over time as a social or cultural construct to promote survival within a group, but if that's your argument, then it doesn't hold much weight with me for a very simple reason. If humanity has existed as long as Darwinian evolution proponents like to claim, then why hasn't our morality advanced as quickly as our technology?
There is still evil in the world. We recognize it in the evening news or the morning paper or when it happens to a loved one or friend. You would think that if we evolved according to the Darwinian model, that our morality would save us from hurting each other, and yet as human history has shown, we've become more efficient at killing, much more apathetic, and much more lazy.

So how has science been able to measure the truth of the existence of evil? There has to be a measure of good to compare, so one knows what evil is. As C.S. Lewis famously said, one must know what a straight line looks like in order to know what a crooked line looks like. Science cannot quantify or measure morality, unless we're considering the latest FBI crime index reports.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#172485 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think I don't? Why do you think I'm lying? Are you interested in dialogue or do you just wish to be antagonistic for entertainment purposes?
You can't start a dialog when you're lying about god and have no evidence for your worthless egotistical personal hallucinations...aka your cult.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#172486 Jul 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you use the word "reliable" in this way? Let's go into philosophy of morality for a round of discussion.
Is it wrong to kill a child? Is it wrong to rape a woman? Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to cheat at a game or contest? Is it wrong to lie?
First, philosophy does not manage, ultimately, to answer these things. As an example, suppose that I think that 'X' is moral and you think that 'X' is immoral. Is there any way to resolve the dispute? I could give specific examples, but I don't want to get caught up in the rhetoric of controversial subjects. Let's simply address the issue of whether it is possible, even in principle, to resolve moral disputes.

In the sciences, there is such a way to resolve disputes: find an experiment that will go different ways depending on whether you or I are correct and then *do* the experiment and see. Now, in practice, it might be difficult to find such an experiment, or to design it and perform it, but that is ultimately how disputes in science are resolved. Any question that cannot be resolved by an experiment, even in principle, is deemed to be meaningless or irrelevant.

In mathematics, there is also a way to resolve disputes. One side or the other provides a proof from the accepted axioms and the other gets to challenge any logic in the proof. If all challenges fail, then the proof is accepted.

Now, the *lack* of a dispute resolution protocol for morality strongly suggests that moral questions are not questions of knowledge. Instead, they are questions of opinion and/or popularity. If most people agree that 'X' is wrong, then 'X' is wrong. Instead of logic, most people use rhetorical devices and appeals to emotions to argue for their moral positions. This also is revealing concerning their truth value.

What I have found is that moral questions tend to boil down fundamental assumptions about freedom, responsibility, tradition, etc. They ultimately rely on the question of what kind of society we want to live in and what rules should apply to who. Over time, we have decided that rules should be applied universally (although this is rare in practice) and that each person should be given equal value (again, purely theoretically).

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172487 Jul 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Using all of the above?
Proves to 100%, that evolution is not only FACT, but that it began on earth BILLIONS of years in the past, with about 99% of the newest species only appearing since the last 500 million years ago.
More to the point?
DNA studies keep **confirming** these facts.
Evolution-- scientific evolution-- is fact.
There is no controversy. None at all-- in **science** circles.
Evolution is also **theory**(scientifically-spea king), which explains the **fact** of evolution.
To deny this?
Is to deny reality.
And reality does not care if you do not believe in it--
-- that is the nature OF reality.
There is **no** faith involved at all.
It just is.
Well and succinctly put, sir.

Kudos.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172488 Jul 18, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Religion cannot even get the gospels to match up.
<quoted text>
Wanna start a fight?

Ask two Christians what the last words of the Jesus were.
Ol Salt

Ocala, FL

#172490 Jul 18, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Wanna start a fight?
Ask two Christians what the last words of the Jesus were.
Yo Mac ...

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) 58 min Eagle 12 9,374
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 7 hr Brian_G 6,217
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr ChristineM 19,788
News Atheism must be about more than just not believ... 9 hr Amused 2
Should atheists have the burden of proof? 18 hr thetruth 38
News Founders created secular nation (Jul '10) 18 hr knight of Jesus 521
Disney Buys The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latte... (Nov '12) Fri millertr1 5
More from around the web