Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255927 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

#187551 Nov 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

No, it would not.

It would demonstrate that life could arise in an intelligently designed and intelligently directed experiment.

It would not demonstrate that life "can", or did arise spontaneously.

Bran muffins can arise from natural elements.

So far, we haven't found them spontaneously erupting.

Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187552 Nov 27, 2013
Absolutely.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
If abiogenesis is accomplished in the laboratory, it will prove that life CAN be created intentionally, not that it originally was.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#187553 Nov 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sorry for your loss of sanity.

Very sad.
Don't you need to HAVE something first in order to lose it?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#187554 Nov 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a gardener?
That's devastating.
You are an ass-suck.
So nobody's perfect, huh?
Oops. Now you're all ad-hom.

Did I hit a nerve, or did you not expect me to look up Mr. Perpetual Motion?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#187555 Nov 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Because in nearly 4,000 years, the Bible hasn't changed it's tune.

Science seems to change every 2 seconds.

I can't consider that reliable.

Even so, if abiogenesis is ever actually discovered, that would not disprove God. If scientists are ever successful in creating life in the lab they will have only proven that life can be produced as a product of intelligent design.

They will unwittingly be making the theists point true.
So...

You really think that the things mankind "knew" 4000 years ago are more valid than the things we've learned in the last 4000 years?

Seriously?

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#187556 Nov 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>Juice!

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

Oops - I just looked in. Viking Warrior seems to be a nice addition.
It's awful now :(

So, I'm here.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#187557 Nov 27, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Not quite, you lantern-face moron.

I understand how the scientific method operates.

You do not understand the difference in the record of the past, the future, and the present.

I'm not saying a word about "science seeing into the future".

I'm saying the record indicates that science is likely wrong about some things RIGHT NOW.
WOW!

I bet you're the only one in the entire universe who thinks that!

You're amazing Bucky. And I'm sure all anyone has to do is ask you.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#187558 Nov 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>Well, you got one thing right.

"medical science gets it wrong all the time"

My dead mother-in-law is evidence of that.
My live mother refutes your evidence.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187559 Nov 27, 2013
Thinking wrote:
If Buck really believes there is no $1m prize, it is only because anything Randi debunks must actually be 100% BS.
<quoted text>
BOLEN REPORT

"The group, made up, I believe, of life's flotsam and jetsam, inhabits the internet after a minimal training at some skeptic conference teaching them how to be even nastier, sleazier, human beings than they were before they found the organized clutter based out of Amherst, New York. This group is reinforced by a five foot tall moron who calls himself "The Amazing Randi."

Amazing Randi's Center For Inquiry, Inc (CFI), based in Amherst, New York shows on their Form 990 that they took in $5,242,304 in total 2009 Income, and they had, that year, ANONYMOUS contributions totaled $2,318,652.- Amazing took a $195,000 salary."

That's a lot of money for just turning down applications and then sending insulting emails.


Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187560 Nov 27, 2013
THE MYTH OF THE RANDI PRIZE

Dr Dick Bierman, who has a PhD in physics, informed me that he did in fact approach James Randi about the Million Dollar Challenge in late 1998. Bierman reported a success in replicating the presentiment experiments of Dr Dean Radin (where human reactions seem to occur marginally before an event occurs), and was subsequently asked by Stanley Klein of the University of California why, if his results for psi effects were positive and replicable, he didn't respond to Randi's challenge.

Dr. Bierman:

"At that point Randi mentioned that before proceeding he had to submit this preliminary proposal to his scientific board or committee. And basically that was the end of it. I have no idea where the process was obstructed but I must confess that I was glad that I could devote myself purely to science rather than having to deal with the skeptics and the associated media hypes."
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#187561 Nov 27, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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."
Ah Ians, T/Y, more gold, solid gold. Im particularly enamored by anti process. Its endemic in the USA.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#187562 Nov 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO!
Since you start with a flat, easy-to-prove LIE?
I will not bother to read the rest of your lie.
You are some special kind of stupid.
LMAO!
Blob. you pseudo pundit. At that time I bought houses and industrial buildings at half price, suvs and pick ups at less than cost, paid lowest intrest in 40 years, even bought coke soda for 17 cents a can which is less than I paid in the 60s. O% intrest on credit cards , half price stocks, incredible bargains at every auction, The list goes on and on. What inflation, you deranged incessantly posting Blob?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187563 Nov 27, 2013
THE MYTH OF THE RANDI PRIZE

Richar Dawkins to James Amazing Randi:

"About the million dollar prize, I would be worried if I were you because of the fact that we have perinormal possibilities. I mean, what if somebody - what if there really is a perinormal phenomenon which is then embraced within science and will become normal, but at present is classified conventionally as paranormal?"

Suitbert Ertel:

"Randi and those who offer a large monetary prize for psi effect demonstrations are entitled to demand unachievable psi effects. It's their money and they must be careful not to lose it. Everybody must admit that this is reasonable economically. But careful reasoning about money and property is quite a different thing than careful scientific reasoning."

Dr Dean Radin was blunt in his assessment:

"This 'challenge' was like Evel Knievel's steam-powered motorcycle jump over the Snake River Canyon: A great stunt, accompanied by pomp and bluster, but ultimately irrelevant."

Dr. Gary Schwartz:

"James Randi has a history of engaging in the twisting of the truth...Randi's recommendation of Dr. Krippner was certainly acceptable to me. However, when I contacted Dr. Krippner directly to see if Mr. Randi’s statement about him serving on the panel was correct, Dr. Krippner was concerned. Dr. Krippner explained that he had previously emailed Mr. Randi stating that he would not agree to serve on such a committee. The truth is, Dr. Krippner was not willing to serve on the panel, and he made this clear to Mr. Randi"

Carina Landin, went through a 3 year process just to reach the preliminary test, and after failing her test (achieving above chance results, but not to a significant level) found that her protocol had not been adhered to...and so is now waiting to be retested.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187564 Nov 27, 2013
THE MYTH OF THE RANDI PRIZE

"In the case of Pavel Ziborov he had gotten all the way through the process, having agreed to 100 repetitions within the eight hour time limit only to have Randi come back and limit his challenge to 20 repetitions, thereby violating his own protocol and ensuring that nothing less than near total perfection could pass the challenge. No explanation was given for this change which Mr. Ziborov wisely refused. On the JREF site it is simply noted that the challenger had refused to accept the protocol."

"Randi has also claimed that once the parameters are set, neither he nor anyone else can change them, yet it was done here. How is that? Simple. Randi NEVER accepted the application. Mr. Ziborov was going back and forth with JREF for almost two years and in that time he was never formally declared an applicant. It appears that this a loophole in the process that has been exploited to prevent legal challenges to his methods. If nothing is signed, there is no contract and the person applying has no legal means to force a reasonable challenge."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187565 Nov 27, 2013
THE MYTH OF THE RANDI PRIZE

"Let us take the analogy of Mr. Smith’s jumping challenge. Mr. Smith does not believe that the ability to jump actually exists and he has a million dollar challenge to anyone who can prove to him that jumping exists under laboratory conditions. You have to apply for the challenge and bear all travel expenses to Mr. Smith’s facilities. You can help design the experiment and everything will be measured with complete accuracy.

So what’s wrong? If you can jump you should take the challenge right? By now, you should notice what’s missing. There is nothing in the previous statement about how high you have to jump. Wouldn’t you want to know this before you applied for the challenge? Because if the height you have to jump is unreasonable, there is certainly no point in applying. Misdirection has been applied here by confusing the requirements with the testing procedures."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187566 Nov 27, 2013
THE MYTH OF THE RANDI PRIZE

Randi’s own volunteers made on a thread discussing applicant #468:

"I realize that there is almost no interest in holding Randi and the MDC to the standards that they claim for themselves. I’ve always been in a ridiculed minority when I make these suggestions. It is clear that the Challenge is not about allowing people to demonstrate their claims, but rather about providing examples for our ridicule – partly for education, partly for group-bonding (my guesses). I am in the process of moving on from the idea of trying to persuade anyone to care to that of trying to get the JREF and Randi to be more upfront about this instead, in order to thwart criticism. I fully realize that this will be a futile effort as well. I also continue to tell people to quit smoking.(…)"
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187567 Nov 27, 2013
Buck and facts do not get on.
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oops. Now you're all ad-hom.
Did I hit a nerve, or did you not expect me to look up Mr. Perpetual Motion?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187568 Nov 27, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oops. Now you're all ad-hom.
Did I hit a nerve, or did you not expect me to look up Mr. Perpetual Motion?
I expected you to act like a stupid ass.

I was not disappointed.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187569 Nov 27, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW!
I bet you're the only one in the entire universe who thinks that!
You're amazing Bucky.

You are commenting to one who knows something that is of common knowledge, which you apparently know also.

"Thinking" is arguing against it.

But you criticize me?

Nice move.



“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#187570 Nov 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So that's a no?
Well done, you got something correct

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 min IB DaMann 15,801
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 min One way or another 40,313
A Universe from Nothing? 1 hr Insults Are Easier 29
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 4 hr NightSerf 187
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 9 hr woodtick57 20,580
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 9 hr gin ertz 3,745
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 12 hr emperorjohn 4,627
More from around the web