Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258476 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

#201343 Jan 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You changed your story.
You said he is "almost certainly wrong" that life cannot come from non-life.
You also mis-state my position. Nowhere did I say it was impossible.
So far, there is o (zero) evidence of abiogenesis. Yet you claim it is almost certain.
You are making a faith claim. You are a religious materialist.
And a dishonest one. Say 10 Hail Darwins.
Buck...if you state that life can not come from non-life, then you DO say that life from non-life is impossible. The two statements say the same things.

But, as usual, you think that if you use different words, the meaning is necessarily different. This has always been a mistake of yours. Over and over you say, "I never said..." when you in fact did say ... but used synonymous language.

And your claim for 0 evidence of abiogenesis is flat out false. It is you that is lying. I have seen your arguments against evidence of any sort. Almost nothing but logical fallacies. Despite how badly you want there to be no evidence, the evidence does exist. You are just swimming up a river in Egypt.

And you are quite wrong Buck. There is both evidence and logic behind thinking abiogenesis is possible. But since you understand neither evidence nor logic, it does not surprise me you fail to see it. You see only what you want and for some who-knows-why reason you want to see things in a fundamentalist Christian light.

For someone who claims to not be a Christian, you sound ever so Christian in your beliefs.

“It's Time. . .”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#201344 Jan 10, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/f riendlyatheist/2014/01/06/reme mber-the-pastor-trying-out-ath eism-for-a-year-he-just-got-fi red-by-his-christian-employers -lets-help-him-out/
Seems a Seventh Day Adventist pastor decided to perform and experiment and see what it was like to be an atheist. He decided to spend a year attending atheist meetings and reading atheist literature.
Well, four days into his experiment he found out one thing. He was a professor at a Christian university and seminary and a councilor for the Seventh Day Adventist church. Was. But no longer. He has been fired from both jobs for his experiment. He was told he needs to rededicate his life to Jesus. Even though he had not stopped believing in Jesus.
Well, his explorations into atheism have already showed him how Christians tend to treat atheists.
How very interesting. All I can say is that Ryan Bell is better off out of that organisation - and that's from someone who knows what they're talking about.

Saving Pastor Ryan...

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201345 Jan 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your archway was intelligently designed. It's your analogy - you live with its flaws.
Yup. Knew that was coming. Even though it is flat out stupid, you couldn't help saying it, could you?

Buck's new found source of knowledge. Proof by analogy.

Why don't you take it one more step, Buck. In the archway analogy, the archway was built by HUMANS. Therefore HUMANS are responsible for irreducible complexity...not some invisible superman in the sky.

Of course, I never said who or what built the archway. And the unstated mechanism is clearly an analogy for evolution. But Buck doesn't understand how analogies work any better than he understands math or logic.
Buck Crick wrote:
Your tapdance around irreducible complexity is sophomoric. Everyone understands that a complex system does not evolve in one step.
Well, everyone but the Discovery Institute. Because their whole argument for the Intelligent Designer, based on IC, is that it would HAVE to evolve all in one step...which they then claim is so incredibly unlikely.

And since you are saying that IC does in fact evolve in multiple steps over time, you must disagree with the DI, and agree with me that IC does not show ID in any way. Because you understand that a complex system does not evolve in one step.
Buck Crick wrote:
The problem is that many systems consist of components that offer no advantage for selecting by strict Darwinian processes, and they are additive and accumulative anyway, resulting in the ultimate function of the system. The Darwinian model allows no goal orientation. They system, therefore, indicates design.
And now you are contradicting yourself and taking the DI line that it would have to evolve in one step.

BTW...you really really need to read up on evolutionary theory if you are going to debate the subject. You are once again using simplistic analogies that fail to follow the complexities of he reality. All of your complaints are actually addressed in evolutionary theory. Things actually do happen in those ways, and for real, logical, understandable reasons. But what is the use of trying to give an upper class biology lecture to a high school dropout? You aren't going to listen and you wouldn't understand it if you did. And you certainly have shown in the past that you have no desire to understand. You are purely confrontational.
Buck Crick wrote:
Your dismissal of irreducible complexity should be directed at the scientific publications who publish authors like Muskhelishvili and Travers in Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs0...
Wow, Buck. DNA contains information!!! Stop the presses!

Buck, I hate to have to inform you of this, but information does not imply an intelligent source. Lots and lots of things in nature have information and have nothing to do with intelligence.

This is just one more case of you twisting language to fit your own ends. Talk about being dishonest.

Buck, you would be much better off not saying stupid things. I suggest you just keep your mouth closed and avoid any chance of it happening.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201346 Jan 10, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Bollocks.
<quoted text>
Your reply was much more succinct and to the point than mine. Well done.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201347 Jan 10, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck...if you state that life can not come from non-life, then you DO say that life from non-life is impossible. The two statements say the same things.....
Buck and RR are just douche bags playing "Word Salad".

They provide their own vinaigrette dressing, too !

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201348 Jan 10, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Factually a lie.
What? That you said that you should not read the critics of the DI to get their position, but rather you should read what the DI had to say about itself.? And then you posted what the DI ha to say about itself?

Or that people never ever lie about themselves. That one I will admit is a lie, but it was used rhetorically and in context means exactly the opposite of what it says.

Yes, the DI would lie about itself, and does all the time.

However, I could give you references all day long, and you won't accept them, because you thing you should only listen to what the DI has to say about itself.

LOL

(No. Really. The DI claims to be a SECULAR think tank??? That is just effing hilarious.)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201349 Jan 10, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
How very interesting. All I can say is that Ryan Bell is better off out of that organisation - and that's from someone who knows what they're talking about.
Saving Pastor Ryan...
Yeah, the story definitely does not shed a good light on some Christians. And what is really ironic is that these are the same sort of Christians that are always whining about how oppressed they are. And yet they don't have a tolerant bone in their body.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201350 Jan 10, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck and RR are just douche bags playing "Word Salad".
They provide their own vinaigrette dressing, too !
It is my decided opinion that Buck is full on OCD. He is obsessed with twisting the meaning of words and thinking synonyms actually mean different things since they are different words.

I can just hear it...

Me: The sky is cerulean.

Buck: NO IT ISN"T! The sky is blue.

Because, of course, cerulean and blue are different words.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201351 Jan 10, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow!
Mathematics a pack of lies but The Bible Creation story is perfect truth ?
ROFLMAO
This is the same stupid crap you have been posting for years. To bad you never bothered to get an education past the 6th grade in all that time.
You are an idiot, BenAssFucked.

Leave mathematics to those of us who understand it.

And I disbelieve the Biblical creation story, and have never said otherwise.

Was there something else I can help you with, Moron?
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#201352 Jan 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
If you believe that, you should start shivering in fear now and never stop.
That would be superfluous, I ve already worked out my salvation with fear and trembling.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#201353 Jan 10, 2014
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Agree
How about we start over?
I tend to go for the throat. It's possible your claim had done merit. Sometimes I need some time and space to come back and look at a situation again
Ok,and thanks, Man
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#201354 Jan 10, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You underestimate faith. It is refractory to evidence.
That's an untrue statement. The Just shall live by faith..Without faith you cannot please God. When prayer is made in faith and its answered isn't that non refractory to faith?
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#201355 Jan 10, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course.
There isn't much Catcher can't do.
bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ha gufawwww AAH choo bwhahahahahaha well, alrighty

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201356 Jan 10, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
What? That you said that you should not read the critics of the DI to get their position, but rather you should read what the DI had to say about itself.? And then you posted what the DI ha to say about itself?
Or that people never ever lie about themselves. That one I will admit is a lie, but it was used rhetorically and in context means exactly the opposite of what it says.
Yes, the DI would lie about itself, and does all the time.
If you are going to call people liars, you incur an obligation to divulge specific instances of them lying.

That's how I do it.

It's a wimp that just says "they lie all the time".

You made the mistake with David Barton of linking to specific allegations.

And your allegations fell completely apart under scrutiny.

What specific examples of lying do you have from the Discovery Institute?

Be a grown man,

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201357 Jan 10, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
You don't see where Jefferson wanted to evangelize Indians?
When the Congress he was in voted at least 6 times to do that? And he negotiated and signed a treaty as president providing federal funds for doing that? Or this: "President Thomas Jefferson also signed the 1802, 1803, and 1804 land acts renewals for “The Society of United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel among the Heathen.”88 "Evangelizing".... "Propagating the Gospel among"....

Do you see it yet?
No. I don't see anything contradicting what I posted earlier - Jefferson's words or Throckmorton's analysis of what they meant. Where do you find support for the idea that Jefferson's intent was to evangelize the Indians rather than to do what he indicated in writing was his purpose - obtain land for the United States?
Buck Crick wrote:
I already posted the link to this, which is Barton's 40-page footnoted rebuttal to Throckmorton, the historically footnoted references comprising 11 pages.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/downloads/newslet...
Yeah. So did I. And I read parts of it, and skimmed some of the rest.

Were there citations from it that you wanted to share to support Barton's claim that, "Jefferson put federal funds to pay for missionaries to go evangelize the Indians and gave federal funds so that after they were converted we’d build them a church in which they could worship,"or to refute Throckmorton's claim that Jefferson's motives were not religious, but to obtain land without war?
Buck Crick wrote:
Barton is dead solid correct, and Throckmorton has no case. That's as clear as I can make it.
OK. Then unless you can support for the claim that Jefferson's intent was to evangelize, I think that we've exhausted this.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201358 Jan 10, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Not if you count for an infinite time. You did say "as long as you like".
<quoted text>
Infinite time is impossible.

Next.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#201359 Jan 10, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
It is my decided opinion that Buck is full on OCD. He is obsessed with twisting the meaning of words and thinking synonyms actually mean different things since they are different words.
I can just hear it...
Me: The sky is cerulean.
Buck: NO IT ISN"T! The sky is blue.
Because, of course, cerulean and blue are different words.
That's also Buck's obsession with the separation of church and state.

It has nothing to do with his beliefs--but if the precise words are not in the Constitution, he cannot accept the concept.

That's why I suggested that he should organize his books, from biggest to smallest.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201360 Jan 10, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you would, but infinity is a concept beyond the human perception of counting.
But you see infinity is the fact you could never count that high.
All attempts to measure an infinite sum fail.
We try to make sense of the universe by attempting to make it finite, but utterly fail because it is infinite. Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel.
You contradicted yourself.

The universe cannot be infinite because nothing can be infinite.

Infinity is an imaginary concept. It has no application to real existence.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#201361 Jan 10, 2014
[QUOTE who=''lightbeamrider wrote'']

Hey hidingfromme, how are you?
Just a question, why is HIV infection radically increasing among gays, the very group we have spent billions educating, and even more medicating?[/QUOTE] That is KiMare, not me.

You did not answer his question. From you reference.
That is me, not Kimare
----------
In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 2008.
----------
That is a 12% increase. That is not maintaining. That is increasing.
Immoral? Anybody immoral who does not see things the way you do? Child logic. Besides you completely ignored KiMare's question? Pa.9642. Po. 200958.
That is me.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
That's not a "radical increase" which is what you claimed. That's a pretty linear increase - or below that.
Radical increase is KiMare's words. A 12% increase is not linear or below. It is a 12%increase.
A radical increase would be more like a geometric one, a doubling of numbers. So you're exaggerating for your position.
It's not child logic to chastise you for your ethnocentric, bigoted religious position. It's decency.
You are attributing KiMare post to me. Mixing them up. You printed it is maintaining and i demonstrated a 12% increase using your own link. That means you are factually incorrect. Still you ignore KiMare's valid question. A thirty year problem billions have been spent attempting to combat and the numbers go up anyway. Mostly in the MSM category. From there it spreads to females. You shoot yourself in the foot by vilifying. Does not equate to professionalism which brings into question your credibility. It is not a stretch to suspect you enhance your resume given the unprofessional nature of your posts. Your condescension etc.

In the United States the origin of HIV was discovered in the MSM category around 1981. From there it spread to females discovered in Jan of 83 per Dave Nelson's link.

http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/...

''On January 7, CDC reports cases of AIDS in female sexual partners of males with AIDS.''

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201362 Jan 10, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck...if you state that life can not come from non-life, then you DO say that life from non-life is impossible. The two statements say the same things.
But, as usual, you think that if you use different words, the meaning is necessarily different. This has always been a mistake of yours. Over and over you say, "I never said..." when you in fact did say ... but used synonymous language.
And your claim for 0 evidence of abiogenesis is flat out false. It is you that is lying. I have seen your arguments against evidence of any sort. Almost nothing but logical fallacies. Despite how badly you want there to be no evidence, the evidence does exist. You are just swimming up a river in Egypt.
And you are quite wrong Buck. There is both evidence and logic behind thinking abiogenesis is possible. But since you understand neither evidence nor logic, it does not surprise me you fail to see it. You see only what you want and for some who-knows-why reason you want to see things in a fundamentalist Christian light.
For someone who claims to not be a Christian, you sound ever so Christian in your beliefs.
I did not say life cannot come from non-life.

Back up your claim - show where I did.

What I said is it has never been observed in the known history of the world, and there is no evidence that it has ever occurred.

Abiogenesis is possible only in the same sense that almost anything is possible.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr nanoanomaly 117
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr 15th Dalai Lama 74,760
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr Dogen 4,048
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 13 hr Subduction Zone 6,084
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Thu Subduction Zone 32,062
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Wed John 4,951
News Why do public atheists have to behave like such... Jun 21 Eagle 12 - 4
More from around the web