Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258041 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

#201822 Jan 11, 2014
If you bother to go looking for lies that David Barton has told, it isn't difficult to find examples. Here is one wopper...

“As far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, they’d already had the entire debate over creation and evolution, and you get Thomas Paine, who is the least religious Founding Father, saying you’ve got to teach Creation science in the classroom. Scientific method demands that!”
--David Barton

Wow. Just wow.

Paine died in 1809...FIFTY fracking years before On the Origin of Species was first published.

Don't believe me, Buck? Well, here is the video of him saying it...

&

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#201823 Jan 11, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
.

Besides, I'm afraid that the genie's out of the bottle on this issue. Have you read the Wedge Document? It explains what the purpose of the ID movement is, which is to effect a pro-Christian social and political agenda, not to discover the hidden secrets of the physical universe. That's why it's considered pseudoscience - something being offered as science that is not science. Science has no political or social agenda.
__________

You are making a substitution - the ID movement for the Discovery Institute and the Wedge Document.

The ID science is not the Discovery Institute, nor does it have a philosophical strategy that I know of. Several scientists doing ID research are not even affiliated.

That is an illegitimate argument you are offering.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201824 Jan 11, 2014
Oh...and here is a good one...

David Barton claims to have spoken to 600 groups in one year...while working 14 hour days on his ranch for a significant portion of the year.

Actually, in this case I believe him. "How could he do this?", you ask. For him it is easy. He talks out of both sides of his mouth.[/sarcasm]

And again, here is the video...

&

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#201825 Jan 11, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't looking for company, Catcher. I was looking for reasons for your condition.
Oh, reasons for my condition. No problem.

I'm fit as a fiddle and slim in the middle as the result of years of vigorous, daily, consistent physical exercise.

Challenging mental activity, required by my professional work, keeps my intellect keen and honed.

I don't smoke, and drink moderately.

I travel often to broaden my horizons, and read extensively (I can recommend some literature if you like) to add another dimension to my life.

What about you, Dave?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201826 Jan 11, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh huh.
Stand on that point and turn around. You can't, you have nothing to stand on. You can't really view it geometrically because it has no dimension. It is an imaginary marker.
I encountered this difficulty with imaginary markers and what we consider true dimension and volume graphing with pencil. Pencil is turning thought and imagination into reality, so to speak, when you draw a picture. Math formulas and such are logics based upon imaginations.
This is the simplest way to describe it.
Take a penny and use it as a theoretical marker. A point. It is round looking. It is equidistant around an apparent center. But visually you have an infinite center, even though you know it is just a marker. You can divide forever finding the middle of something that doesn't exist, but is the basis of your measurements and terminations. Scrunch a bunch of pennies together as tight as you can. You have this infinite center of imaginary markers you try to measure distance between. You really have nothing to absolutely measure. Plus you have the added difficulty of the space between those circumferences of those round imaginary markers to account for.
Math is basically just establishing ratios by division with imaginary points. Even if you took a bar of metal you can never really identify the ends and total length in an absolute fashion. Plus you need at least one of those imaginary increments between two objects to create separation. Doing so breaks the continuity, or continuum, of the object. You have multiple continuums forming a larger one. If you can see them. Be advised those theoretical markers have that same issue of separation when turned into visual reality.
Sit down and do math on the basic level with those points and you should see what I am getting at. Try to figure absolute volumes, areas, and lengths. Scrunch those points together and do your geometry and measurements between them. Will be infinitely entertaining.
"an infinite center"???

This nothing but word salad, Dave. Pure gibberish.

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#201827 Jan 11, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
More insight here than I have read in the last 100 posts.
You must be skipping over my posts, Buck.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201828 Jan 11, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations, Dave.
You understand infinity and theoretical math much better than Darwin's Stepchild.
And he claims to have taught it.
Bwaha.
And then we have this from Buck concerning Dave's gobbledegook.

A fool praising another fool.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201829 Jan 11, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
More insight here than I have read in the last 100 posts.
How many iterations before you reach the wall, Buck ?

Afraid to answer or just clueless as usual ?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201830 Jan 11, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
More on the Wedge Document.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2735
----------
Discovery Institute and "Theocracy".
Overview: Periodically certain Darwinists make false and unsubstantiated claims that Discovery Institute advocates “theocracy” or is part of the “radical Christian right” or supposedly supports something called “Christian reconstructionism.” These charges are little more than smears, and they show the bankruptcy of the Darwinists’ own position. Rather than argue about the substance of the scientific debate over neo-Darwinism, all Darwinists can do is engage in baseless ad hominem attacks.
The “Wedge Document”: How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend.
Overview: In 1999 someone posted on the internet an early fundraising proposal for Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Dubbed the “Wedge Document,” this proposal soon took on a life of its own, popping up in all sorts of places and eventually spawning what can only be called a giant urban legend. Among true-believers on the Darwinist fringe the document came to be viewed as evidence for a secret conspiracy to fuse religion with science and impose a theocracy. These claims were so outlandish that for a long time we simply ignored them. But because some credulous Darwinists seem willing to believe almost anything, we decided we should set the record straight. For a more detailed response please read "The Wedge Document: So What?".
I see you are still buying into the Discovery Institute's propaganda.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#201831 Jan 11, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
Physical brains and the development thereof. This drugs and youth and way the brain is got me to thinking.
You have two ways to build a brain. Heavy book learning or a desire to know things and to experience. The first creates storage to accommodate the data. The second builds new neural pathways and connections between them. The first is an encyclopedia you read. Including methodologies and perspectives. The second is a processor with a different perspective. It, too, stores the data.
The seeking of knowledge causes neural paths to be made. The need for more info stimulates brain growth. You can only store so much in a cell, and the storage is useless unless you can process the data. The encyclopedic mind is what others put into it, the processor is more dynamic. Sometimes the two can come together.
Read up on the spiritual parts of the brain.
I've already mentioned the physical effects hallucinogenic drugs have on the network building of the brain. Drugs don't lead to processing power unless there is another section to monitor and integrate the effects. Otherwise they just lead you into nowhere.
That is just touching on this for tonight.
But let me mention a really interesting brain controlling drug.
Nicotine.
Painkiller, brain glue, brain stimulant, stress reliever.
The last century had the greatest strides in science and other thought in history. There was a reason for that. A world getting hooked on readymade cigarettes. In every science lab, engineering and manufacturing, educational, and government endeavor you had brains being powered by cigarette smoke. Einstein was a heavy smoker. Roosevelt and Eisenhower were heavy smokers. There were millions of them. Thinking in the abstract, hard thinking to get things done. The body came second, using the brain came first. Those were individuals, not the clones of today.
http://i1246.photobucket.com/albums/gg601/sca...

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201832 Jan 11, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Does intelligent design provide a plausible account of life’s origins?
http://spectator.org/articles/57159/does-inte...
----------
According to neo-Darwinian theory, new genetic information arises first as random mutations occur in the DNA of existing organisms. When mutations arise that confer a survival advantage, the resulting genetic changes are passed on to the next generation. As such changes accumulate, the features of a population change over time. Nevertheless, natural selection can only “select” what random mutations first generate. Thus the neo-Darwinian mechanism faces a kind of needle-in-the-haystack problem—or what mathematicians call a “combinatorial” problem. The term “combinatorial” refers to the number of possible ways that a set of objects can be arranged or combined. Many simple bike locks, for example, have four dials with 10 digits on each dial. A bike thief encountering one of these locks faces a combinatorial problem because there are 10 × 10 × 10 × 10, or 10,000 possible combinations and only one that will open the lock. A random search is unlikely to yield the correct combination unless the thief has plenty of time.
Similarly, it is extremely difficult to assemble a new information-bearing gene or protein by the natural selection/random mutation process because of the sheer number of possible sequences. As the length of the required g
The above is an example of the Sharpshooter fallacy. The "sharpshooter" takes a wild shot, then paints a bulls eye around the bullet hole.

In this case, the DI is assuming that the end result (the life we see today) had to be the end product. This, however, is not the case...and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that. The life we see today didn't have to be the end result. It just happens to be the end result that we got.

An analogy (and yes I know this is going to go right over your head since abstract thinking makes your head hurt)...Take a deck of card. Shuffle. Deal. The hand you got is what happened. But there are a vast number of other hands that could have happened. For a single (5 card) poker hand (5 card), the number of possibilities is 52!/(5!47!), or roughly 2.6 million different hands...all equally likely. The number of ways life could have turned out is vastly larger than that.

The DI's claptrap is also a case of the Naturalistic Fallacy, the assumption that the way things are is the way things had to be. A case of Is-Ought.

And, I will point out, you are listening to the critics and not going to the source. Why do you not follow your own advice?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201833 Jan 11, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would be interested in your story. The whole story if it were possible for you to tell. But you won’t tell the whole story.
You see there’s more under the surface than what’s seen on top of the water.
I won't tell "the whole story" because this is a forum that only allows 4000 characters. Plus the time it would take to write my autobiography would be far, far more than the time I have available.

I have already given you the essentials of the story. And you don't believe that. Why should I expect you to believe if I elaborate on it? You've rejected everything I say, all true, and you even have rejected the parts that are facts which can be demonstrated.

It seems to seems to be a common MO with godbots.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201834 Jan 11, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
It's simple to understand. I just don't agree.
<quoted text>
None of those is correct.My atheism is nothing but a statement that I am a rational skeptic that has seen no evidence in support of any god claim.
<quoted text>
I have no idea why you say that.
<quoted text>
This is never ever going to end, is it? I don't base my atheism on evidence. I base it on the lack thereof.
<quoted text>
You have me confused with somebody else. I don't vilify theists (can you produce a counterexample?), I rarely discuss churches except the one I attended in the 70's, which I praised, and I do not advocate arson,
What I think we are seeing with lightbeamrider is that he ( and others like him) can not conceive of people actually being able to think differently than they do.

lbr's thinking is steeped in faith, therefore he thinks everyone else is steeped in faith...they just won't admit it.

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#201835 Jan 11, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
"an infinite center"???
This nothing but word salad, Dave. Pure gibberish.
That means you can't grok the difference between imagination and physical reality.

But we knew that.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#201836 Jan 11, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
That means you can't grok the difference between imagination and physical reality.
But we knew that.
We are positive you are physically real, but everything you think and say is imaginary.
You're sorta the Blair Dave project.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201837 Jan 11, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be skipping over my posts, Buck.
Did Buck yellow sheet you ?

LOL

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#201838 Jan 11, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
What I think we are seeing with lightbeamrider is that he ( and others like him) can not conceive of people actually being able to think differently than they do.
lbr's thinking is steeped in faith, therefore he thinks everyone else is steeped in faith...they just won't admit it.
Amusing.

You are so steeped in the faith your perceptions and thinking are right that you totally ignore the fact you could be wrong. Which you are. You can't see your own weaknesses. Your faith comes from things you read and scriptures you were told to follow to prove them.

Gonna tell you a secret. You have more faith in what is going to happen to you when you die than I do myself.

You are guessing what happens.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201839 Jan 11, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
The above is an example of the Sharpshooter fallacy. The "sharpshooter" takes a wild shot, then paints a bulls eye around the bullet hole.
In this case, the DI is assuming that the end result (the life we see today) had to be the end product. This, however, is not the case...and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that. The life we see today didn't have to be the end result. It just happens to be the end result that we got.
An analogy (and yes I know this is going to go right over your head since abstract thinking makes your head hurt)...Take a deck of card. Shuffle. Deal. The hand you got is what happened. But there are a vast number of other hands that could have happened. For a single (5 card) poker hand (5 card), the number of possibilities is 52!/(5!47!), or roughly 2.6 million different hands...all equally likely. The number of ways life could have turned out is vastly larger than that.
The DI's claptrap is also a case of the Naturalistic Fallacy, the assumption that the way things are is the way things had to be. A case of Is-Ought.
And, I will point out, you are listening to the critics and not going to the source. Why do you not follow your own advice?
A concrete example is that the reason we have five digits on each hand and foot is because our fish ancestors had a pental structure to their fins, a fact known from the fossil record.Had archaic fish developed a quadral structure we would have four digits on each hand and foot.

Note that even our ears are developed from gill structures which is easily demonstrated in fetal development.

At least there is evidence to support these "scientific theories" unlike ID/Creationism which simply has words in a 6000 year old children's story.

Since: Sep 08

La Veta, CO

#201840 Jan 11, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
We are positive you are physically real, but everything you think and say is imaginary.
You're sorta the Blair Dave project.
That was about the most clever post you have ever made, Aura.

I take it your wife was reading it with you and made a suggestion.

You and her should work as a team. Your posts would then start to amaze and astound the rest of us with its intellectual content.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#201841 Jan 11, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the one running.
You whoosed out, exposed as a farce.
Smile.
KiMare wrote:
I'm not the one running.
You whoosed out, exposed as a farce.
Smile.
I've already supplied information showing that radiation - does not - make humans glow. There is no evidence of that at all.

It's time for you to rebut that information and to support your assertion that Yahweh was an alien or extraterrestrial.

You're just caught up in wanting people to accept your claim for The Alien Yahweh in a mystic flying saucer.

For some reason, the myth seems more plausible to you if you can insert an "alien" in the mix. I really don't know what else you're trying to represent if it isn't that.

So far, you have made grandiose claims and offered nothing more than a bare assertion, it must be as you say, because you've decided it fits radiation exposure, with no supporting evidence it is radiation exposure. This doesn't include there is nothing that supports the mythic story - in its original form - as true.

I've shown that radiation exposure does not make people glow.

It's on you at this point.

Prove me wrong.

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) 17 min SoE 48,824
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 2 hr Eagle 12 5
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr Thinking 21,886
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Aura Mytha 23,562
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 4 hr Into The Night 5,711
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 6 hr Scaritual 78
News In defense of faith 8 hr IB DaMann 7
More from around the web