Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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: Jan 11

Location hidden

#188862 Dec 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You are asserting that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
That would include everything that doesn't have evidence now or ever in human history.
Are you sure you wanna stick to that?
Evidence is something to be discovered.

Can you discover something that existed long before you discovered it?

There's a difference between the definition of evidence, and whatever the word "evidence" refers to in use.

"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

Both uses of "evidence" here are references to data. Data exists independently of our knowledge of it.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#188863 Dec 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
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."
hmmmmm....seems there is always a qualifier to the program, huh?

Just like - why NOT to believe in a religion. There seems to always be a qualifier.

It is quite enlightening to know that believers and non-believers alike, hold in agreement the same thing to maintain their perception of themselves - they both require qualifiers - ones that causes one to choose what to believe.

In fact - neither are being honest - because neither truly knows.

An Atheist uses an external force to make a determination of "the facts" - Science. To choose to use or not to use Science is a choice made by one's Self.

A religious apologist also uses an external 'force' to believe as they do - the Bible.

Honest dictates that neither of these people truly know the outcome, thus "faith" is attained by one's Self through learning.

Cheers.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188864 Dec 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
It's been done dumbass, completely artificial dna.
http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/group-leaders/h...
This one tells you what their goals are, not that they've done anything.

"Our aims are the generation of artificial genetic systems and the synthesis and evolution of novel, DNA-like polymers for applications in nanotechnology and material science."
"...the alternative molecules could help others to develop..."

Again, they simply used existing materials and rearranged them, nothing was created.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188865 Dec 1, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
Evidence is something to be discovered.
Can you discover something that existed long before you discovered it?
There's a difference between the definition of evidence, and whatever the word "evidence" refers to in use.
"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."
Both uses of "evidence" here are references to data. Data exists independently of our knowledge of it.
Then there's no way to prove the age of the universe.

No one was there to document the data.

Now what ever will we do?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188866 Dec 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
If you are waiting for something to come in the mail, the more days it is not there, the less likely it ever will be. And yes, an empty mailbox is both evidence and absence of evidence. The empty box - absence of evidence in one sense - is still evidence just like the letter in the box is evidence, but of two different and opposite things. It only sounds self-contradictory until you analyze what is being said.
Buck Crick wrote:
This is incorrect. If the question of the mailbox is whether there is a letter inside, the observation that no letter is inside is evidence. It is not absence of evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Absence of evidence on this particular question - "is there a letter in the mailbox?" would require lack of observation inside the mailbox. Evidence cannot be both absent and present.
My point was that the empty mailbox is absence of evidence of one kind and evidence of its opposite. It is both.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188867 Dec 1, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
hmmmmm....seems there is always a qualifier to the program, huh?
Just like - why NOT to believe in a religion. There seems to always be a qualifier.
It is quite enlightening to know that believers and non-believers alike, hold in agreement the same thing to maintain their perception of themselves - they both require qualifiers - ones that causes one to choose what to believe.
In fact - neither are being honest - because neither truly knows.
An Atheist uses an external force to make a determination of "the facts" - Science. To choose to use or not to use Science is a choice made by one's Self.
A religious apologist also uses an external 'force' to believe as they do - the Bible.
Honest dictates that neither of these people truly know the outcome, thus "faith" is attained by one's Self through learning.
Cheers.
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
An Atheist uses an external force to make a determination of "the facts" - Science.
uh-oh...

Many atheists here believe that they were born atheist.

One wonders how a newborn makes that determination...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188868 Dec 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Effective at what?
Anything valuable or productive.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188869 Dec 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Then getting tricked into admitting that the distinction between "baby" and "fetus" is, in your words, "quibbling".
Straw man. You did no such thing. You have mutilated and disfigured what actually transpired beyond recognition so that you might have a shot at prevailing. Care to try to refute that? I mean with something more than "I'm right, you're wrong, and you're an idiot."

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#188870 Dec 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
This one tells you what their goals are, not that they've done anything.
"Our aims are the generation of artificial genetic systems and the synthesis and evolution of novel, DNA-like polymers for applications in nanotechnology and material science."
<quoted text>
"...the alternative molecules could help others to develop..."
Again, they simply used existing materials and rearranged them, nothing was created.
Aftermarket parts.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#188871 Dec 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
This one tells you what their goals are, not that they've done anything.
"Our aims are the generation of artificial genetic systems and the synthesis and evolution of novel, DNA-like polymers for applications in nanotechnology and material science."
<quoted text>
"...the alternative molecules could help others to develop..."
Again, they simply used existing materials and rearranged them, nothing was created.
Absolutely not, your misreading it, dna was created from sugars, and it evolves on it's own. The problem is that even the simplest life forms have so many sequences it would take a decade to create a life form from the synthetic alone. But it is possible, what is possible in the immediate future is " The generation of artificial genetic systems and the synthesis and evolution of novel, DNA-like polymers for applications in nanotechnology and material science."

But it has been done entirely synthetic dna was created.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188872 Dec 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
according to the Topix Atheist definition of "atheism", that vomit-eating dog is an atheist.
Though gastronomically challenged, the atheist dog's is wedded to evidence better than the faith based believer. Its mental map contains no gods greater than its master, which is all that the evidence supports.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188873 Dec 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
"Atheism: a + theos, denying god" (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology).
"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not" (Academic American Encyclopedia).
"Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason" (Random House Encyclopedia).
"Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God, the use has become the standard one" (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy).
"Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods" (Oxford Companion to Philosophy).
"Atheism is disbelief in God" (Introduction to Philosophy, Perry and Bratman, Oxford University Press).
"Atheism from the Greek a (not) plus theos (god). The doctrine of disbelief in a supreme being" (Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, William Reese, HumanitiesPress).
"Atheism (Greek, a-[private prefix]+ theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God" (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor).
"Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist" (The World Book Encyclopedia).
"Atheism, Greek atheos-Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God" (Oxford English Dictionary)
"Atheism, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswerable, for the atheist, the non-existence of god is a certainty" (The New Encyclopedia Britannia).
"According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god…(rejects eccentric definitions of the word)" (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
"Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good" (Encyclopedia of Religion).
"Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power"(Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).
"Atheism denies the existence of deity" (Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I).
How's this campaign working out for you? Don't forget these:
Buck Crick wrote:
Atheism is belief. Nobody has any problem wrapping their head around that. On the other hand, atheists lie about it constantly.
Buck Crick wrote:
No, you don't have the default position. You want your position to be the default position, and that is why you lie about your position. The default position would be agnosticism. Atheism is a belief position, no less than theism. Thanks for illustrating your fraud.
Buck Crick wrote:
Thanks for illustrating the fraud again. You can't get to atheism on evidence. It requires belief.
Buck Crick wrote:
"Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist" (The World Book Encyclopedia-1991).

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188874 Dec 1, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
Aftermarket parts.
Like chrome wheels and carpet kits?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188875 Dec 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Absolutely not, your misreading it, dna was created from sugars, and it evolves on it's own. The problem is that even the simplest life forms have so many sequences it would take a decade to create a life form from the synthetic alone. But it is possible, what is possible in the immediate future is " The generation of artificial genetic systems and the synthesis and evolution of novel, DNA-like polymers for applications in nanotechnology and material science."
But it has been done entirely synthetic dna was created.
Of course I'm misreading it.

Of course.

Even though you readily admit it was created from sugars and wasn't poofed into existence in a lab.

Hey, you think the Henry Big Boy in .45 Colt would be a good gun for the Zombie Apocalypse?

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#188876 Dec 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It's been done dumbass, completely artificial dna.
http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/group-leaders/h...
http://www.nature.com/news/enzymes-grow-artif...
"Both Krishnamurthy and Joyce note that although researchers can now efficiently replicate artificial genes resistant to biodegradation, the XNAs still depend on DNA-derived enzymes to replicate.“It’s miles and miles from being a synthetic life form,” says Joyce."

http://www.nature.com/news/enzymes-grow-artif...

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#188877 Dec 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The tree of knowledge of good and bad.
I'd get into detail of it.
But you don't seem to understand the importance of balance.
Besides being wrong about synthetic dna, you have to bend over backwards and give yourself a rim job to believe this.
You already said ra meant calamity and disaster , now you are adding "bad" You're basically rimming yourself to get around the fact that it is written and translated as "evil".

So I ask you if you like the taste of your own excrement, because you've got your head and tongue shoved way up your hiney licking away. What else does "ra" mean? Every fcking thing ..but evil?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188878 Dec 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
You are also wrong on study of the paranormal. Compared to the studies leading to Higgs, there have been miniscule numbers of researchers, academic inquiry, and money devoted to it.
I am not wrong.

The intellectual and economic attention that an idea attracts is related to the feasibility of its claims and the results of the pilot investigations.

People and governments were sufficiently impressed with the arguments supporting the possibility of finding the Higgs boson and with he fruits of similar and related research to justify the huge outlays of time and capital, and why CERN built the Large Hadron Collider.

The American government would have willing to give the paranormal the same attention had the initial investigations such as Stargate justified it. They wanted to harness the power of the paranormal as a weapon and a means of defense. But that government deemed it a sterile avenue of research and walked away from it.

This speaks to the roadmap metaphor again, and such things as evidence of reality. It is grossly inefficient and wasteful to throw the same billions of dollars at an idea which cannot be connected to external reality as was spent on an idea which can.

If only America had been as wise concerning its evaluation of evidence of WMDs in Iraq, and chosen an evidence based course instead of a faith based one. Trillions were squandered trusting the Neocon's map of reality.

Have you found anything of value in any of these discussions yet, Buck? Anything that you can use? I suspect not, and if I am right, it is yet another example of the inefficiency of navigating using a faulty map. A faith based map divorced from evidence may be causing you to miss a lot of interesting tourist attractions in your life journey.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188879 Dec 1, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
I was invited to eat dinner at my friends house one time. When I showed up, I knocked on the door. Nobody showed up. I knocked again. I waited a few minutes. My friend's mom finally answered the door and rushed me inside. Then she said she was sorry for not getting the door sooner. She said, "Come on in, we're having kittens!"
Don't forget the carpet hors d'oeuvres.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#188880 Dec 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I'm misreading it.
Of course.
Even though you readily admit it was created from sugars and wasn't poofed into existence in a lab.
Hey, you think the Henry Big Boy in .45 Colt would be a good gun for the Zombie Apocalypse?
I love the 45 Long Colt.

Get a Ruger or other strong modern gun chambered for it and handload it for more punch. You can bring it up to 44 mag levels. The difference is the 44 mag will make a 8 inch deep hole with 6 inch diameter and the 45 a 6 inch deep hole with a 8 inch diameter. Bigger diameter bullet.

Personally, I would get a Marlin 1895 in 45-70. Can shoot all day at a comfortable level. Can come in very handy when they keep getting up. Use hollow points as it will eventually disintegrate them. Then you can use your boot heels.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188881 Dec 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
You have learned to reject ideas, for sure. Others have learned to follow the evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =C6k7xa1NrCcXX
Openmindedness only requires the willingness to consider evidence impartially, not to sift through everything thrown my way. Both astrologers and Shermer have reputations that tell me that watching this is likely to a waste of my time.

Can you summarize what it is you liked about this YouTube, provide a transcript I can scan, or direct me to the part of this that you are interested in? If you can give me a reason, I'll watch it.

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
High School Atheism 1 hr blacklagoon 3 41
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 3 hr Frindly 3,269
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Frindly 83,837
News Scientist Richard Dawkins weighs in on Malaysia... 9 hr nanoanomaly 1
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 13 hr Eagle 12 - 4,965
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) 13 hr Eagle 12 - 132
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... 13 hr Eagle 12 - 17
More from around the web