Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256574 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.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201306 Jan 9, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
In Spanish, it would be 49.
50 in Spanish is "cincuenta."
"Sin cuenta," proounced the same (except in Spain, where the "c" is pronounced like a "z"), means uncountable, which could be taken as an infinite amount.
One less than cincuenta (50) is 49 (cuarenta y nueve in Spanish). So the last number before it goes into infinite is 49.
In Spanish anyway.
In mathematics, there is a term "countable" which is associated with the counting numbers. A countable set can be placed one-to-one with the counting numbers or a subset thereof. All finite sets are countable. The set of counting numbers (or other sets of the same "size", aka cardinality) are also countable. The later is sometimes referred to as "countably infinite" to distinguish.

I know Buck is going to get into at tizzy over that last. He does get it that it all matters in defining your terms clearly...not in the everyday use of the words.

Sets which have a cardinality larger than that of the counting numbers are termed "uncountable". This refers to the fact the sets are too large to put into a one-to-one correspondence with the counting numbers.

The counting numbers, the integers and the rational numbers are all countable. The real numbers are uncountable.

BTW...one way of defining an infinite set is that the set can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself. A proper subset is a subset that does not contain all the elements of the entire set. This distinction is made because the set is defined to be a subset of itself...for reasons of mathematical logic I won't go into here. It is just mathematically convenient to define it that way.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201307 Jan 9, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
He's wrong about life not coming from non-life?
Could you give an example, please?
You will be the first.
As usual, Buck fails to understand what was written.

What he showed was that complex life does not come from non-life in this modern environment.

This is what I said.

This says nothing one way or the other about life coming from non-life.

And as for the original poster...who said life can't come from non-life...well...he doesn't know one way or the other either. Neither do you. Nor do I.

BUT(!!!) I say that life from non-life is a possibility. This statement does not contradict that I don't know one way or the other.

YOU and the poster say it is an impossibility...which does contradict that statement. In other words, you don't know but claim you do know. Rather disingenuous aren't you?

BTW...we do keep making discoveries which make it seem more and more likely that abiogenesis really did happen...or at least that we can make it happen in a lab. Seeing that there is nothing left of the surface of the Earth from around 4 billion years ago when whatever happened happened, we will most likely never know absolutely. But then, that can be said of almost everything in science. And the fact science knows anything about it at all puts science miles and miles ahead of religion.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201308 Jan 9, 2014
KiMare wrote:
[Harry] Potter didn't portray a fact of science thousands of years before science discovered it.
Neither has the Christian god.

I think that the visionaries making Star Trek have made more accurate predictions of the future than Jehovah.
http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2013/08/12/star-t...
KiMare wrote:
Nor did he produce a culture of the distinction and history of the Jews..
He could with governments, armies, and teams of evangelists working over a several (pre-scientific) centuries

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201309 Jan 9, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I know for a fact that Ahura Mazda exists. First he spoke to me. Then he touched me. Then my prayers to him were answered. That's proof enough for me.
Besides, where did absolute morals come from? If there is such a thing as good or bad, it proves that Ahura Mazda exists. The Avesta tells us so.
Also, everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. This is further proof of his existence.
Why not believe in Ahura Mazda? We have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Once dead, it's too late. People that were too proud and that wanted to be little Mazdas themselves won't be able to say that they weren't warned.
The greatest trick Angra Mainyu ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
Well, when you factor in that all of the concepts of good and evil that came out of the Old Testament were originally ideas in Zoroastrianism, it all must be true because the Christians say it is true. But the Jews and the Christians have twisted the message over the centuries. They no longer are children of Ahura Mazda. They have become the tools of Angra Mainyu, the evil one.

They must be punished.

I am glad to see you understand my friend.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201310 Jan 10, 2014
KiMare wrote:
I just saw a near senile old jack ass kicking your ass. Smirk.
Are you planning to share with us what it is that you believe that has given you so much? Maybe some of us would like to have what you have.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201311 Jan 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You won't get a cogent answer.
We can use the orbit of Pluto as an analogy of this argument. It takes Pluto about 238 years to complete one orbit of the sun. meaning that is hasn’t completed a third of an orbit since it was discovered in 1930. Nevertheless, scientists claim that it orbits the sun. And naturally, nobody is questioning that obvious truth.
But if the bible had made a statement that caused believers to scoff at the thought of Pluto completing orbits, they would be arguing that it is clearly impossible.
We would point out that Pluto's position in the sky has evolved since its discovery.
They would counter that micro-orbiting is possible, but not macro-orbiting, which they would argue is a qualitatively different thing,
We might counter as you did that small changes accumulate over long intervals and become big changes.
They would likely counter that you can't prove it, and that nobody has ever seen it.
We might ask what force could prevent the small changes from growing into larger changes over longer intervals, and there would be no cogent answer to that either - nothing better forthcoming than ridicule of the idea, perhaps involving the word "poof".
When I was teaching calc 2, and we were doing parametrization of paths, I would set my students the problem of calculating the Sun's gravitational force on the Earth. I allowed them to assume a circular orbit with radius 93,000,000 miles...not too far off the truth, and it simplifies the problem a LOT.

The answer comes out to several billion miles per year squared. Sounds like a LOT. Until you do the unit conversions. Works out to about 0.03 feet per second squared...or right at 1/1000 of a G (G being 32 ft/s/s...the surface gravity of the Earth).

They were actually somewhat stunned by how small it is. But the Sun is tugging at us the whole year and over a year that tiny acceleration adds up. A lot.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201312 Jan 10, 2014
KiMare wrote:
You have no idea what my belief system is.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Sure I do, You're a theist that quotes from the Christian bible as if it were authoritative. The rest - the details - is just theology. Would it matter if I knew your particular set of beliefs - by works or by faith, by immersion or by sprinkling, on Saturday or on Sunday, etc.?
KiMare wrote:
I ask one simple question, how the profundity of one incident got in a book you consider fallacious, and now you know my belief system?
You're a theist that quotes the Christian bible authoritatively. What else do I need to know? The particulars would only be of interest if I wanted to follow the path you have chosen.
KiMare wrote:
you certainly are an idiot. Go ahead, dumb down on stupid with a idiotic answer again! Snicker smile.
Are you planning to tell us what it is you believe, or is that a secret? I'm sure that several of us would like to know, perhaps to emulate you. You are proud of what you are, aren't you?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201313 Jan 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The missing links of all creatures would put an end to any evolutionary debate.
You underestimate faith. It is refractory to evidence.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201314 Jan 10, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Curiously, while Buck supports every fundamentalist Christian point that gets mentioned on this thread, Buck has said in the past that he is NOT a Christian. Which means that almost all of his fundamentalist supporters really think Buck is going to Hell right along with all the atheists.
I find this extremely ironic. It baffles me how Buck comes to hold these positions. His thinking must be very contorted. Or else compartmentalized in the extreme.
I don't understand that aspect of Buck, either. He agrees with many of the rest of us about the problems with Christian theology and the Christian church, rejects Christianity, and then argues in a way that promotes it, as with his siding with Barton who seems to want to see an erosion of church-state separation. Does Buck not know where that argument will take the nation if successful? He won't like the outcome any more than any other non-Christian.

What about it, Buck? Why do you side with the enemies of church-state separation? It protects you from Christian theocracy.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201315 Jan 10, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
I think when you said "suspend disbelief" it sounded as if you never really were sold but I think you are probably using that term after-the-fact.
That phrase refers to a choice to ignore cognitive dissonance. Initially, Christianity is not believable. A new Christian - somebody willing to receive the promised gifts of the spirit including discernment, but not yet able to see the truth of the biblical claims - must agree not to be overcritical. I chose to allow myself sufficient time for biblical teachings to begin to make sense, and for the supernatural agents that I had hoped were there to reach out to me as I was promised they would do, before judging it.

We cannot choose to believe - or at least I can't. I can only be willing to do so where possible. But in the end, I can only believe what I find believable.
Skombolis wrote:
If so then I will say I don't prevent to know why some people don't find what they were looking for. But I can speculate. It's possible they just were not ready or maybe didn't recognize the answer.
I concluded that the religion was false.
Skombolis wrote:
I'm sure you know the story of the man who goes on top of his roof during a flood. First a boat comes and says get in and he says no thanks but God will save me. Then the water rises and a helicopter comes by and says get in and again he turns it down saying God will save him. Then the water rises more and the man drowns. When he gets to Heaven he asks God why He didn't save him. And God replies "I sent you a boat and a helicopter. What more do you want?". There may have been one other thing too but the point being sometimes we get it into our head what response we expect and miss the actual response. God often works thru others.
Are you suggesting that the Christian god reached out to me but I either refused or didn't notice?
Skombolis wrote:
You said your church had good people in it. It's possible His reply was through someone you knew reaching out or trying to convince you to stay.
I expect a god to be able to reach me whether I am open to it or not, and certainly when I am not only open to it, but searching for that god in good faith.
Skombolis wrote:
But I do know people often feel prayers went unanswered but in fact they were and the answer was no or something other than exactly what we wanted. I believe God will do what we need and not necessarily what we want.
If you are correct, then he must not have needed me to worship him.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201316 Jan 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I feel bad about my snarky post to IANS about the "You never believed" and "Your faith was inferior." stuff. IANS, I apologize for harping on you like that. I should've taken the time to really try to hear what you were saying and I didn't. I'll try not to jump to conclusions like that in the future. I'm at fault for that and I fully cop to it. I agree with what Skom said here, IANS. "God will do what we need and not necessarily what we want". I've found that to be very true. It's the whole "The Lord works in mysterious ways" thing that atheists often mock as superstitious garbage.
Thank you for that.

I didn't consider you snarky, however. You came to the only conclusion possible if the Christian promise is true. If a god is really out there that really wants to be known and loved and is really ready to accept any sincere taker, then I must have fallen short.

But I know what actually happened, and was forced to come to a different conclusion.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201317 Jan 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
There are many Topix Atheists! that admire science to the point of worship.
You dilute the meaning of the word worship. Is your worship of your god nothing more than my respect for science? If I worship science, then I worship everything else that I trust or admire as well, including a good restaurant and a good friend.

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#201318 Jan 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither has the Christian god.
I think that the visionaries making Star Trek have made more accurate predictions of the future than Jehovah.
http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2013/08/12/star-t...
<quoted text>
He could with governments, armies, and teams of evangelists working over a several (pre-scientific) centuries
So did Jules Verne.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201319 Jan 10, 2014
Divinity Surgeon wrote:
This should be interesting.
LOL .I assume you are referring to the appearance of Shrink and his posts to Skombolis < http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... > and Buck .< http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... >.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201321 Jan 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
As highlighted by Georgi Muskhelishvili and Andrew Travers refereed paper in "Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences", completeness of the system of information generation and transfer in the DNA of all cells contains irreducibly complex organization.
How do you establish the validity of such a claim? Can you demonstrate irreducible complexity with more than a claim that something seems irreducibly complex?
Buck Crick wrote:
There are other more obvious examples of the irreducible complexity, which means systems exist that could not evolve incrementally. One is the vertebrate eye, which is of no use without the intricate structure and function of the optic nerve. The eye would have to have evolved independently 30 times - incrementally.
This is the kind of argument that in the past has undermined the claims that irreducible complexity can be identified by gestalt when others have come along and revealed a possible pathway for evolution of animal eyes consistent with natural selection to a state that was once called irreducibly complex.

"Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye "

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#201322 Jan 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>LOL .I assume you are referring to the appearance of Shrink and his posts to Skombolis < http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... > and Buck .< http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... >.
Those too but more directly, RR and Catch being civil to each other for a day.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#201323 Jan 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>How do you establish the validity of such a claim? Can you demonstrate irreducible complexity with more than a claim that something seems irreducibly complex?

Buck Crick wrote, "There are other more obvious examples of the irreducible complexity, which means systems exist that could not evolve incrementally. One is the vertebrate eye, which is of no use without the intricate structure and function of the optic nerve. The eye would have to have evolved independently 30 times - incrementally.
"

This is the kind of argument that in the past has undermined the claims that irreducible complexity can be identified by gestalt when others have come along and revealed a possible pathway for evolution of animal eyes consistent with natural selection to a state that was once called irreducibly complex.

"Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Nwew5gHoh3EXX
I doubt he'll comprehend what you just posted. You are one patient marching Teddy.
Thinking

Blaenau-ffestiniog, UK

#201324 Jan 10, 2014
Hello you!

I now fear for the sanctity of tortoises everywhere.
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Thinking !!!
I finally finished Misfits. What an excellent series.
Thinking

Blaenau-ffestiniog, UK

#201325 Jan 10, 2014
Bollocks. You have an opinion. You have no proof.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
A "set" of counting numbers is theoretical. It does not exist.
Numbers exist, inasmuch as they exist representatively for quantity. Otherwise, they also are only theoretical.
No infinite counting numbers exist.
What you are employing is a circular argument. It goes like this. I say no infinite counting numbers exist. You offer a theorized infinite - an idea - and say, See, I have imagined something infinite, so something infinite exists.
It does not. Nothing infinite exists.
No infinite counting numbers exist. An idea of an infinite set is an idea. You imagine it. And then you use it for theoretical operations.
And you thought you knew something about math.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201326 Jan 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That phrase refers to a choice to ignore cognitive dissonance. Initially, Christianity is not believable. A new Christian - somebody willing to receive the promised gifts of the spirit including discernment, but not yet able to see the truth of the biblical claims - must agree not to be overcritical. I chose to allow myself sufficient time for biblical teachings to begin to make sense, and for the supernatural agents that I had hoped were there to reach out to me as I was promised they would do, before judging it.
We cannot choose to believe - or at least I can't. I can only be willing to do so where possible. But in the end, I can only believe what I find believable.
<quoted text>
I concluded that the religion was false.
<quoted text>
Are you suggesting that the Christian god reached out to me but I either refused or didn't notice?
<quoted text>
I expect a god to be able to reach me whether I am open to it or not, and certainly when I am not only open to it, but searching for that god in good faith.
<quoted text>
If you are correct, then he must not have needed me to worship him.
Your experience is somewhat similar to mine.

My mother was seriously religious. We went to church literally every time the doors were opened. Every service, every Sunday School, every bible study, etc. etc. So I was steeped in religion as a child, and as a child I believed what I was told.

In my mid-teens I began to have doubts. Most of this was brought on by the church telling me that God was necessary for this or that to have happened. But what I was learning from science was that most of these things had natural explanations and didn't require a supernatural one. That put a big dent in the trust I had for the church's teaching.

The other blow was I began to see how little attention these supposedly pious Christians paid to their own rules. For so many they were rules of convenience. I was especially disillusioned when my mother rationalize lying on a financial report. This was the woman that lived and breathed Christianity and was now breaking one of the Ten Commandments in order to gain a little financially.

So now the similar part. I too was going through a crisis of faith, as they call it. And like you I prayed sincerely for understanding and a sign to lead the way. And like you I got nada. After about two years of struggling with this, I finally came to the conclusion, as you did, that the whole religion thing was a crock. I had been promised, told over and over, that if I really sought answers from God, God would provide them. Apparently, the answer was...go and become an atheist.

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) 9 min Knower of nothing 43,298
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 25 min Eagle 12 21,198
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 25 min emperorjohn 18,588
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 36 min Eagle 12 768
Good arguments against Christianity 37 min Eagle 12 217
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 41 min Eagle 12 10,062
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 1 hr Catcher1 9,378
More from around the web