Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256624 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.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#187531 Nov 27, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
For "myself" it's a fact. God is real. If you don't believe, well I can't help you. You are the captain of your own ship. Sail where you will.
I fully intend to.

You may drift at the whim of imaginary zephyrs if you wish.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#187532 Nov 27, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
<quoted text>
Yellow Beard was my fave.
Hey mac :)
Hi, Luci.

Me go nap now. Rain's stopped.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187533 Nov 27, 2013
Khatru wrote:
I guess you saw the news earlier this year about how they dug up the bones of Richard III who was found under a Leicester car park. Now there's a squabble about where to inter the bones. Leicester want the remains to go in the local cathedral while York say he should be laid to rest in the minster.
No, I hadn't seen that news. I suppose they identified him by his hunched spine.

They can bury him with his nephews at Westminster Abbey.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187534 Nov 27, 2013
Khatru wrote:
I had to google him as well. I hope you knocked seven bells out of him.
That was a new anglicism for me. Thanks. I love those. Christine taught me "Sweet FA (Fanny Adams)." SupaAFC taught me "paint me gobsmacked"

Americans say "beat seven shades of shit out of." Which do you like better?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187535 Nov 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
it's ridiculous to trust science, as it changes seemingly every single day.
Yet you do trust science, and every single day. You are right now if you're using a computer. Did you take any medications today? Did you use your car or cell phone?

It's probably almost exclusively in writing that you don't trust science, and likely only when defending faith based beliefs. Faith has a way of doing that - you have to strain and contort your thinking to accommodate it when it flies in the face of reality.

Sure, the latest scientific pronouncements are suspect until they've been vetted as we noted earlier. But your comment about it being ridiculous to trust science when I know that you do it every day is what I'm talking about. Faith divorces you from pieces of reality, and induces you to play linguistic games with words like "fact."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187536 Nov 27, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Tell you what, take 20 people all with serious illnesses, admit 10 to the hospital and let medical science deal with them, have the other 10 stay home and pray for God to cure them. Lets take a poll down the road and see how many God cures and how many medical science cured. Being completely honest, which group would you chose to be in giving that you had a very serious illness?
Is an HMO involved?

All seriousness aside, Riverside Redneck has been asking us what evidence could we hope to find for a god. As you likely know, this would be it, although we would need a third arm of the study: people getting no prayer or medical care (a placebo controlled study).

If we beefed up the numbers being tested to increase the power of the study, and chose our subjects so that the three groups were roughly alike going in (a randomized study), and our investigators and patients didn't know which therapy if any they received (a double blinded study), we could determine if either medicine, prayer, both, or neither did more than nothing.

But Riverside Redneck is correct to be cautious about the conclusions generated by a single study, and we should be suspicious of the findings - especially medical findings.

Incidentally, when cardiac patients were studied for the benefit of prayer, if they didn't know they were being prayed for, they did no better or worse than those getting no prayer.

But if they were told that they were being prayed for, they did worse (had more postoperative complications), as this ten-year study of 1800 patients revealed:

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer
By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: March 31, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pr...

"Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study called the STEP study (Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer) has found.

"And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested."

Anybody interested in looking at what an abstract to a study like this one looks like, check http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567 , which gives a capsular summary of the study design and its outcomes.

And yes, this should be taken with a grain of salt.

Still, one wonders why the Lord didn't take this wonder opportunity to show us how real he is and how much he loves us. Surely he must know that doing otherwise will weaken faith and likely cost millions of souls that could have been saved had he protected all of the prayed for patients as the bible seems to suggest that he promised he would.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187537 Nov 27, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
BTW... http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/feature/why-... I immediately thought of you. How many scars does your dog have for not obeying your commands?
Does anybody doubt that a dog in your home is far more likely to be beaten than one in Catcher's home? You're the bitter person, not him.

Why don't you try to be a better person, or at the least, conceal your disappointment in life and your resentment of others better?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187538 Nov 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I defer you to IANS' analogy of being God blind, like color blind.
You're misrepresenting me. I compared god blindness to color blindness and paranoia but considered the paranoia more analogous. This is what I posted:

My solution to problem [2]

The color blind know that normally sighted people are actually seeing something that they are not because of the ability of those people to identify colors consistently, and to agree among themselves about what they see, such as when one claims that the colorblind person's socks don't match, and he is able to poll any number of people that give him the same answer without collaborating. The colorblind are convinced by the strong correlation of the answers they get.

The paranoids, however, are different. They seldom agree, even with themselves, coming up with ad hoc argument after argument for why the danger is real, each contradicting the last one, with no two paranoids having the same version of their delusion, and most frustrated with and angry at those who "pretend not to see the obvious." Unlike the color sighted, the paranoid have to make emotional and passionate pleas to be believed.

Which group do you suppose the faithful most resemble to those of us that don't experience what they claim to experience? Many angrily chide the rest of us for disagreeing, often using the same emotionally charged pleading as the paranoids, often resorting to threats of hellfire. Furthermore, each describes a different god, contradicting not just one another, but themselves from telling to retelling. That's how I know that the god visions are in their heads.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187539 Nov 27, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I thought James Randi's "homeopathic sleeping tablets overdose" demonstration was quite excellent.
Thanks. I hadn't been aware of that until now.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news...

And yes, Buck, the article repeats the claim that he has offered a million dollars:

"In his message, Randi issued a one-million-dollar challenge to the manufacturers of homeopathic products to prove their claims"

I don't think anybody's too worried about him having to pay that claim, or that it will affects the habits of faith based consumers willing to believe without evidence.

Randi goes on to say, "It should be a crime for retail corporations to profit by denying the public this critical information about the products on their shelves."

Should we really go too far out of our way to protect such people? I used to think so, but not so much any more. It's common knowledge that claims for homeopathic remedies are rejected by evidence based thinkers. If you don't respect evidence, and prefer faith, shouldn't you be free to turn your money over to those catering to the faithful?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187540 Nov 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Examples of the paranormal have been proven for years with scientific precision. People with prizes are scam artists.
From an actual researcher:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =qw_O9QiwqewXX
Can you share some of those proofs for us? Your video was longer than I was willing to give to this. Do you have a written report of any paranormal claim proven with scientific precision? Remember, unsupported claims mean little with skeptics. If you want to be believed by evidence based thinkers, you need to give them a reason.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187541 Nov 27, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That'd be Alfie Rupert Sheldrake?
The "morphic resonance" idiot?
He's a gardener.
He's a gardener?

That's devastating.

You are an ass-suck.

So nobody's perfect, huh?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187542 Nov 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No it isn't. You said that God commits murder. Murder is clearly defined as an illegal act by a human.

So explain how God can break a human law.
Are gods exempt? Maybe the laws should specify that gods are held accountable to the same minimal standards we hold people to. I realize that enforcement and prosecution would be a problem, but we could still define the act of homicide by a god as unlawful, which should satisfy you that it is legally murder.

And I would add torture to that. Sending people to hell could be a crime.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187543 Nov 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
If faith is unjustified and the beliefs embraced by faith incorrect guesses, shouldn't better ideas contradict them?
Dawkins is not using the theory to predict behavior, but explain what is observed. If you invented a feature and convinced him that it was an actual innovation of nature, he would not likely have a way to know that you did that - what nature selects for is unpredictable - and he ought to try to account for it in terms of the theory.
As for why he does this, it's because he believes that the theory is correct, as do I and millions of others. You present the fact of him doing this like it's an unjust preference for the scientific theory over faith based ideas.
I happen to think that it's a matter of a better idea in the process of displacing a lesser one, as when chemistry replaced alchemy and astronomy replaced astrology, also faith based systems in conflict with superior evidence based approaches to the same domains.
I imagine the Renaissance Buck objecting to those new sciences then. I think the objections would be similar to yours above: a complaint about the prejudices of the proponents of the new way to try to explain everything in naturalistic language, and always in a way that was bad for hypotheses based in magic.
Yes, that would be correct and appropriate.
What I observe in people like Dawkins is a readiness to attribute anything and everything in life to mutation and natural selection.

This seems unscientific to me, and it leads, at times, to bizarre constructions, filling in blanks with whatever can be imagined - a fantasizing of sorts.

One that comes to mind is Dawkins' speculative description of development of winged flight. It is comical.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187544 Nov 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No one can convince me that prayer doesn't work, as I've had prayers answered directly.
How would you know? Because what you prayed for came to pass?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No sir, you didn't offend me.
That's good.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187545 Nov 27, 2013
Bongo wrote:
I consider That your coprophagous proclivity is showing ... Are you sure you haven't subscribed to the forer effect?
You're on a roll.

Regarding the Forer effect, do you know about the related concepts metacognition, Dunning Kruger effect, subjective validation, confirmation bias, antiprocess, and bounded rationality? From assorted sources, mostly Wiki:

"The Forer effect ... is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people."

"Metacognition refers to one’s knowledge concerning one's own cognitive processes and products ... "cognition about cognition", or "knowing about knowing".

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate ...[due to] inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude"

"Subjective Validation ... refers to a process by which people accept some claim or phenomenon as valid based solely upon a few personal experiences and/or subjective perception. In practice, this error is cited when a person perceives two independent events as having some sort of deeper, hidden relationship because of that person’s prior beliefs, expectations or hypotheses about the world."

"Confirmation bias is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses."

"Antiprocess is the preemptive recognition and marginalization of undesired information."

"Bounded rationality is the idea that in decision-making, rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make a decision."
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187546 Nov 27, 2013
If Buck really believes there is no $1m prize, it is only because anything Randi debunks must actually be 100% BS.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. I hadn't been aware of that until now.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news...
And yes, Buck, the article repeats the claim that he has offered a million dollars:
"In his message, Randi issued a one-million-dollar challenge to the manufacturers of homeopathic products to prove their claims"
I don't think anybody's too worried about him having to pay that claim, or that it will affects the habits of faith based consumers willing to believe without evidence.
Randi goes on to say, "It should be a crime for retail corporations to profit by denying the public this critical information about the products on their shelves."
Should we really go too far out of our way to protect such people? I used to think so, but not so much any more. It's common knowledge that claims for homeopathic remedies are rejected by evidence based thinkers. If you don't respect evidence, and prefer faith, shouldn't you be free to turn your money over to those catering to the faithful?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187547 Nov 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
if they prove abiogenesis, they're proving intelligent design (in this case, the scientists are the intelligent designers).
If abiogenesis is accomplished in the laboratory, it will prove that life CAN be created intentionally, not that it originally was.

If each step such as the natural assembly of amino acids, peptides, sugars, membranes and nucleic acids can be shown to occur naturally under the conditions present on early earth, anthropogenic abiogenesis will also demonstrate that life can arise spontaneously without the help of a god or any other intelligent designer.

But you needn't worry. That's no threat to you. Nothing science does is a threat to strong faith. Science is powerless absent the will to consider evidence.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187548 Nov 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a fact that I love my wife.
Teach me how I can share that with you.
You just did.

You can't demonstrate your uxorial devotion to us, however. But you can demonstrate it. Your wife knows, doesn't she?

Try demonstrating that prayer worked for you, or that it works for anybody. Would you know how to do that? It's a far sight harder than demonstrating an emotion, and for a good reason.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#187549 Nov 27, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
Yellow Beard was my fave. Hey mac :)
Juice!

How's things over at WSJLM? Back to normal?

Oops - I just looked in. Viking Warrior seems to be a nice addition.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187550 Nov 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you share some of those proofs for us? Your video was longer than I was willing to give to this. Do you have a written report of any paranormal claim proven with scientific precision? Remember, unsupported claims mean little with skeptics. If you want to be believed by evidence based thinkers, you need to give them a reason.
Yes, I do.

First I would like to address your insult.

I have little problem being believed by "evidence-based thinkers".

I have significant problems being believed by the likes of my critics on these pages, who, when faced with a piece of evidence or research, immediately turn to some tidbit they can dig out to use for ad hominem.

Example - the latest is the charge leveled that a researcher "is a gardener".

"Evidence-based thinker" is a running joke on this thread.

Another example is an Esquire Magazine article using innuendo to impugn the truthfulness of Dr. Eben Alexander, where the author uses a variety of sources, but neglects any attempt to interview the subjects of his article.

Another is the use of anything Sam Harris says about an NDE. Harris had advocated killing people for their beliefs, before they have a chance to commit harmful acts. No word whether he thinks the same preemptive exterminators should be used on him for his beliefs. Any scientific criticism he offers on the subject of NDEs would be rejected out of hand by an "evidence-based thinker".

I'll waste just a bit of time on confirming evidence.

Jessica Utts is professor of statistics, University of California, Davis, and was one of two experts commissioned by the CIA to review the two-decade U.S. government psychic research program in the Summer of 1995.

Utts: "For the past decade the U.S. government experiments were overseen by a very high-level scientific committee, consisting of respected academics from a variety of disciplines, all of whom were required to critique and approve the protocols in advance."

Utts: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well-established."

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) 13 min Aura Mytha 43,374
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 54 min Bob of Quantum-Faith 18,682
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 58 min Pahu 3,846
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 1 hr thetruth 785
News Why I quit atheism 2 hr Chazofsaints 718
News Atheism vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns (Sep '14) 3 hr thetruth 354
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 6 hr thetruth 4,833
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 6 hr thetruth 21,236
A Universe from Nothing? 11 hr Insults Are Easier 602
More from around the web