Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258039 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.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#188152 Nov 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Walls can interfere with EM signals. Screws, nails, etc. Paper or plastic screen should work.
You should look for shared imagery or "feelings". However, this can not be a topic thought transfer. You have to get into the goodie bag of the subject emitting. A more emotional gut level thing, not a simple thinking of a number.
You are partially correct in that the brain/body require/produce electricity to operate. However you fall down when you likens the body to a radio transmitter whose signals should be capable of reception by another human. The signals from the body are minute and unamplified, unfocussed and effectively random in comparison to any other person near by. Then we have the fact that the body is not a radio receiver, the brain/body has developed to operate on electrical conduction and not “em” transmissions.

Given the deliberate and the accidental usage (operating switches, electric motors, static discharge etc) over the full spectrum of the em bandwidths then consider yourself lucky that the human body does not detect/respond to such signals. You would be dancing like a scrap of paper in a hurricane and totally insane within moments.

Ahh, now I see why you believe what you believe

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188153 Nov 29, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
Nope. It's a couple of guys who mounted cameras to take time lapse photos of glaciers receding over a 3 year period. There was one chunk the size of Manhattan that calves off of one. They caught that on video. Incredible sight. Took about an hour. They don't just break off and float away. They actually roll over in the process. Guess all that I've travels straight to the places where you claim it's growing.
As you well know, climate change deniers don't do evidence, although they will gladly offer as evidence any fact that they think they can use to support their faith based positions. We see it every time this subject is broached.

This is one of the ways that faith poisons our world. It's absolutely incredible that anybody would want to gamble on this issue in the face of so much highly suggestive evidence of a real threat, but that's faith in a nutshell.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion." – Nobelist Steven Weinberg
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#188154 Nov 29, 2013
Buck thinks god was always there but infinity can't exist!
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
So what did it come from?
It couldn't come from nothing, right?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188155 Nov 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
You would have a terrible time adjusting, IANS. You couldn't even handle an employee of yours mispronouncing rural to your satisfaction. In her home area.
Your repeated concern with me is touching, Dave, but I've got it all under control, including that pronunciation crisis. Believe it or not, we all handled it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188156 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
And prevail I do.
LOL.
Buck Crick wrote:
But you missed an important point. I didn't miss it. Bert Legume exaggerated his initial assertion for a reason - to make religion look bad. That is easily done by being factual, but that was not good enough for Bert Legume. Hitchens was the originator of the statement, and for the same reason. The point was to make religion look worse than it is. Now, I got him to move his goalposts to "everything meaningful". That is still an exaggeration.
Well done, Buck, and a huge contribution to thought on the subject. Religion only poisons many meaningful things, not everything or even everything meaningful.

What do you agree that it poisons?

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#188157 Nov 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
As you well know, climate change deniers don't do evidence, although they will gladly offer as evidence any fact that they think they can use to support their faith based positions. We see it every time this subject is broached.
This is one of the ways that faith poisons our world. It's absolutely incredible that anybody would want to gamble on this issue in the face of so much highly suggestive evidence of a real threat, but that's faith in a nutshell.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. For good people to do evil things, it takes religion." – Nobelist Steven Weinberg
And how right he is. How have you been, IANS?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#188158 Nov 29, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Buck thinks god was always there but infinity can't exist!
<quoted text>
So bucks god is not omnipotent

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188159 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
False. No synthetic DNA was created.
Here we go again.

If you were interested in truth, clarity, teaching and learning, you would make a statement of what did occur, what did not occur, and in what sense what happened was and was not the synthesizing of DNA.

But that's not what you're here for. You want try to prevail in discussions, and you're happy to use any semantic trick that you think will help you.

Venter's team synthesized strands of DNA de novo:

" A team of 17 researchers at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) has created the largest man-made DNA structure by synthesizing and assembling the 582,970 base pair genome of a bacterium, Mycoplasma genitalium JCVI-1.0."
http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/%20projects/...

"Longest Piece of Synthetic DNA Yet ...Scientists have created an entire bacterial genome with off-the-shelf chemicals ... Scientists today announced that they have crafted a bacterial genome from scratch, moving one step closer to creating entirely synthetic life forms"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

What Venter's team didn't do was write the code. They read most of it from natural genetic material, then built a modified copy by assembling nucleotides.

Most people, including the author of the resources cited, consider that synthetic DNA. But you, the consummate contrarian, choose to quibble over usage rather than discuss facts and contribute to understanding as I have just done.

Who but you cares whether this amazing achievement is called synthesis or not? And what legitimate objection do you have to calling DNA that was synthesized from its monomeric constituents synthetic DNA?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188160 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Thank you for admitting abiogenesis is a "default position". Looking for the evidence to support the conclusion you already hold - very scientific. It has to be so because it has to be so.
You don't seem to understand what a default position is, nor what holding one entails.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188161 Nov 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you are again offering your unsupported opinion as objective fact beyond speculation, and also trying to make Hitchen's look ridiculous by offering your caricature of his comments, another of your preferred methods of rebuttal.
You claimed that Dembski made Hitchens look ignorant and childish,once again without support. To me, the quote below says that people like Dembski that prefer to hope that there is an absolute god to run their lives are childish, not people like Hitchens promoting a departure from such thinking.
This is Hitchens' closing statement from their debate, which you can hear beginning at 9:33 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =bS82pno9nUYXX :
"I'll close and say ... why might one not want to believe in it even if it could be true, because my view is that it's not only not true, but it's probably a good thing that it isn't. Why is it not a good thing?
"Because I don't think it's healthy for people to want there to be a permanent, unalterable, irremovable authority over them. I don't like the idea of a father who never goes away."
[snip]
"The idea of a king who cannot be deposed, the idea of a judge who doesn't allow a lawyer or a jury or an appeal. This is an appeal to absolutism. It's the part of ourselves that's not so nice; that wants security, that wants certainty, that wants to be taken care of.
"I believe that totalitarian temptation has to be resisted ... What I'm inviting you to do is to consider emancipating yourselves from the idea that you, selfishly, are the sole object of all the wonders of the cosmos and of nature - because that's not a humble idea at all, it's a very arrogant one and there's no evidence for it.
[snip]
"And then, again, the second emancipation - to think of yourselves as free citizens who are not enthralled to any supernatural-eternal authority; which you will always find is interpreted for you by other mammals who claim to have access to this authority - that gives them special power over you. Don't allow yourselves to have your lives run like that."
=========
Now perhaps you can offer us something Dembski said to support your contention that he made Hitchens look ignorant and childish.
Ians: "Now perhaps you can offer us something Dembski said to support your contention that he made Hitchens look ignorant and childish."

That's easy. The hard part is choosing which instance to use where Dembski made him look ignorant and childish.

We could start with the title of the debate - "Does God Exist".

All the citations you offered from Hitchens are misdirection by him, as is always the case. He prefers to debate biblical inerrancy and religion as to the nature of God, which is what you offered above.

Perhaps more to the point, Dembski skewers Hitchens before the debate even gets to a back-and-forth, simply by reading from Hitchens' book and reducing it to nonsense.

Dembski quotes from the book where Hitch says one should not believe in a god because of science, specifically Darwinian evolution. "The mystery is gone", he says, so there is no need for god.

Then Dembski quotes Hitchens specific reasons - and shows that Hitchens is WRONG on all of them:

1. Junk DNA (myth)
2. Cambrian explosion (mystery not gone)
3. Inverted retina - too low an expectation for a design (proven false)
4. Neilson and Pelger computer model of eye ( shows how it is proof of absolutely nothing)

So, we have Dembski specifically reducing Hitchen's justifications for disbelief in god to crap.

This is in the first 15 minutes.

Dembski makes a statement that sums up not only Hitchens view, but also YOURS, Iman. And he does it quite well, for a religious freak who knows nothing:

"His atheism DEMANDS a purely materialistic theory. And there's only one going. Design is unthinkable, because atheism demands it so".

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188164 Nov 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Incidentally, I think your bible changed pretty radically almost two millennia ago.

RiversideRedneck wrote:
Only the translation has changed, not the core concept.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
OK. I thought I read somewhere about a new covenant and a New Testament related to some fellow named Jesus. Did I get some misinformation there?
LOL

There was no Bible before Jesus, duder..

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188165 Nov 29, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
I suggested a method to test to a university program in CO, but never got a response. Put the test subjects inline within the same magnetic flux field. Perhaps with a vacuum chamber in between.
No answer? How odd. And ungrateful. How many science fans can there be out there sending in unsolicited experimental design protocols?

Inline suction and flux - isn't that how they artificially inseminate buffalo?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188166 Nov 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go again.
If you were interested in truth, clarity, teaching and learning, you would make a statement of what did occur, what did not occur, and in what sense what happened was and was not the synthesizing of DNA.
Bull shit.

I made a correct statement in response to a false statement, that false statement being that scientists had created synthetic DNA.

Your demand for this "sense" or that "sense" should be directed at the maker of the false claim, not the truthful one.

I can go into the nitty-gritty of it and show why it's a false claim, but I suspect you already know.

Creating synthetic DNA sounds good though, huh?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188167 Nov 29, 2013
boooots wrote:

On that occasion or those occasions that prayer was answered directly did you see or talk to the entity in a way that you could actually tell that God was answering your prayer, rather than whatever you prayed for came about anyway, as is the case with most people who claim they have had prayer answered.
No.
Was the answer(s) to your prayer(s) something that could not possibly have occurred without the assistance of a deity, or some super entity?
No.
Assuming that God did make itself known to you so that you are able to say without doubt that your prayer (I am assuming you prayed to God) was answered by Him, did He seem to be anything like the many artists' pictures of God that have been produced over the past thousand or more years?
Did not see Him.
If you only spoke with Him but didn't see Him, what kind of a voice did He have?
It wasn't really a voice, even though I heard Him.

It's hard to understand and even harder to put into words.

Tell me, what does chocolate taste like?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188169 Nov 29, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
Pear make the cables and claim they improve the sound of the Hifi. They also charge thousands for them so it's only fair they actually prove their claim. How hard is this to test? All that's needed is a sound system, someone to swap the cables over and a few volunteer test subjects. The opinion of some professional testers: "We will find that every topic Pear claims is important to cable design has been debunked as nonexistent, inaudible, or insignificant at audio frequencies. Coupled with the fact that exotic cable designs are not used by the professional broadcast and recording studios that produce the recordings in the first place, this non-issue of cables is further diminished in significance."
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables...
Top Ten Signs an Audio Cable Vendor is Selling You Snake Oil
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables...
Good post, and good Internet research.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188170 Nov 29, 2013
boooots wrote:
I didn't look at your link, but many believers in God know that many parts of the Bible, which fundamentalists still claim are true, did not actually ever happen, and they know that because actual evidence has been found which disproves what the Bible says in those particular places.
Who are these "many" believers?
The problem with being credible when one is a person who believes that the Bible is 100% true (or as some say the Word of God) is that their making that claim is an indication that they have a poorer than average education.
The "you're just stupid" argument falls flat every time.
You cannot claim that something occurred that is known beyond any doubt didn't occur.
I'm not.
But yes you can continue to make claims about other things in the Bible which we have no evidence to determine either the truth or the lie.
Like?
All of the events of the Bible that require the act of the supernatural cannot be proved to not have happened, at this moment in time, and I can't imagine how science would ever be able to prove that something of a supernatural nature never occurred.
Well that's a negative attitude to have...

The bottom line is that some parts of the Bible which are not claimed to be parables, by the Bible, are in fact, untrue, because we have been able to prove that those particular things did not ever occur.
For example?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188171 Nov 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go again.

" A team of 17 researchers at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) has created the largest man-made DNA structure...
This lie is much closer to the truth than the original lie offered by the Venter team...

"Creating synthetic life"

Liars differ, but some would say when you are going to lie, just pick a good one and stick with it.

Of course, we know scientists only pursue truth.

Wink, wink.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#188172 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Ians: "Now perhaps you can offer us something Dembski said to support your contention that he made Hitchens look ignorant and childish."
That's easy. The hard part is choosing which instance to use where Dembski made him look ignorant and childish.
We could start with the title of the debate - "Does God Exist".
All the citations you offered from Hitchens are misdirection by him, as is always the case. He prefers to debate biblical inerrancy and religion as to the nature of God, which is what you offered above.
Perhaps more to the point, Dembski skewers Hitchens before the debate even gets to a back-and-forth, simply by reading from Hitchens' book and reducing it to nonsense.
Dembski quotes from the book where Hitch says one should not believe in a god because of science, specifically Darwinian evolution. "The mystery is gone", he says, so there is no need for god.
Then Dembski quotes Hitchens specific reasons - and shows that Hitchens is WRONG on all of them:
1. Junk DNA (myth)
2. Cambrian explosion (mystery not gone)
3. Inverted retina - too low an expectation for a design (proven false)
4. Neilson and Pelger computer model of eye ( shows how it is proof of absolutely nothing)
So, we have Dembski specifically reducing Hitchen's justifications for disbelief in god to crap.
This is in the first 15 minutes.
Dembski makes a statement that sums up not only Hitchens view, but also YOURS, Iman. And he does it quite well, for a religious freak who knows nothing:
"His atheism DEMANDS a purely materialistic theory. And there's only one going. Design is unthinkable, because atheism demands it so".
Yes you are correct, he certainly knows nothing, particularly about atheism, which may explain why he was talking through his butt. Atheism does not demand anything, atheism simply is the logical result of evidence in one direction and complete lack of evidence in the other.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188173 Nov 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I don't watch movies much, but my seatmate on the plane was watching a movie that reminded me of you. I think it's For Grownups Two. Adam Sandler and Penelope Cruz. You gotta see it, it's redneck city.
And oh, no cucumber slices in the water this time, just lime.
Nah.. I didn't like Grown Ups 1. I couldn't even finish it.

I saw "We're the Millers". Eh... Jennifer Aniston shows she can't lap dance for shit, but seeing here in a stripper's outfit is worth the watch :)

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188174 Nov 29, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
I found this survey very telling:
90% of ALL American are religious, have a personal God they pray to and worship.
When we go to those Americans who are educated, possessing masters and doctorate degrees that percentage drops to 60%
When we include scientists of all fields we find it drops to 40%
And when we include "elite" scientists, those in charge of major research programs the number drop further to just 7%
It does seem as though most polls taken over the years bears out the fact that intelligent levels favor the non-believers.
We see the proof of this everyday on topix with people rejecting scientific facts and grossly misunderstanding scientific concepts, or at worse having no education in the sciences whatsoever.
90% of all stats are made up on the spot.

I wonder what percentage of crackheads think crack is A-OK....

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) 20 min Chimney1 48,467
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 5 hr hpcaban 5
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 hr ChristineM 23,489
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) Sat ChristineM 21,863
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Sat Eagle 12 4,907
Why you need to make sure you are saved before ... Fri Scaritual 14
Jesus Christ and Wisdom, Knowledge, Understandi... Nov 29 Richardfs 5
More from around the web