Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239086 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.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#217674 Mar 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG no it isn't.
If you don't get your high school diploma when you're supposed to, you can go to adult ed to either get your HSD or GED.
http://californiaadultschools.org/cas/school-...
You are NOT a professor. You're not even a high school teacher. Any high school teacher would know this.
Same thing different methods in different states. It is commonly called a "GED". It means you were a failure as a teenager. Your permanent record will indicate that you did not graduate from a real high school. You count as a drop-out.

Now you are a failure as an adult.
Congrats!

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#217675 Mar 7, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Reveal anything about yourself on this site and these slimeball atheists will use it against you. It is best not to.
You learned that the hard way, didn't you, soldier?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#217676 Mar 7, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No way the Redneck has any degree.
He's a dropout, period.
And it sure shows.
Agreed.

He sure does work hard to fit the "ignorant redneck" stereotype.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#217677 Mar 7, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No you can't. If you could, you would've already.
All you can prove is that you are a compulsive liar and a coward.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#217678 Mar 7, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You learned that the hard way, didn't you, soldier?
Your posts sez it all. One grade A p#ick if there ever was one.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#217679 Mar 7, 2014
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe.
Maybe not.
It ends up looking like the message is: "I'm the Jesus! and I approved of the disaster here... Now I've gotta go watch children starve in other countries."
"Look at how Jesus protected 2500 Christians here."

"Islam must be right, they accomplished killing 2500 devil worshipers."

"God wanted this to happen."

"God did this."

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#217680 Mar 7, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>Your posts sez it all. One grade A p#ick if there ever was one.
Sorry, Brother.

You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Michael

Westcliffe, CO

#217681 Mar 7, 2014
atheism does not require any faith at all

just live your life without thinking there's some shathead watching over you and save days and weeks of your life mindlessly talking to some ghost that you know doesn't exist

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#217682 Mar 7, 2014
A grade school dropout.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#217683 Mar 7, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound just like Hitler.
Godwin returns.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217684 Mar 7, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe she is referring to the Discovery Institute web site. Are you so pedantic that you can't figure this out? No wonder you have such poor reading comprehension skills.
<quoted text>
No, Buck, you did not provide a theoretical framework. What you provided barely came up to the standard of, "Well, I have this idea see..."
<quoted text>

So, no, ID does not accept natural selection...at least not in its entirety. And it DOES make the claim of being "preferable to natural selection". It is right there in "...rather than gradually developing."
<quoted text>
Well, it is possible you are right on this one. That YOU have not offered "because it looks designed".
BUT...and this is a big but (that's a joke son),,,You have constantly promoted the Discovery Institute and THEY have offered...over and over..."because it looks designed" arguments. Just consider Dembski's Design Inference. That is all about "because it looks designed".
And, IIRC, you HAVE supported Dembski's Design Inference, in which case you HAVE offered "because it looks designed"...just not in those words.
I believe you really need to rethink your position on ID. On the one hand, you think you agree with ID, but on the other hand you don't agree with ID. At least judging by what you said in this post.

1. She referred to Intelligent Design as "they", Read it. That's what she said. If you want to supply a different meaning for the plain words, talk to her, not me.

2. I supplied a theoretical framework. Like Hiding, you just didn't like it. Sorry.

3. ID accepts natural selection. Here is Richard Dawkin's review of Michael Behe (a leading ID proponent) writing in his second book:

" Descent with modification gives him [Behe] no problems, nor does natural selection."

Here is an excerpt from Michael Behe (leading ID proponent) from his book, "Darwin's Black Box"

"... To explain that Darwinian evolution cannot explain everything in nature is not to say that evolution, random mutation, and natural selection do not occur; they have been observed (at least in cases of microevolution) many different times. Like the sequence analysis, I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent." -pp. 175-176

Again, from "Darwin's Black Box", Michael Behe acknowledging natural selection:

"... evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects, genetic drift, gene flow, linkage, meiotic drive, transposition (the transfer of gene between widely separated species by nonsexual means), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems may have been designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important."

Also, the Discovery Institute website, confirming natural selection:

"Natural selection in this case was a conserving force which occasioned a minor modification..."

4. Dembski has never, nor have I, offered the argument "because it looks designed". You are not capable of understanding Dembski's mathematics, but maybe you can understand his plain english words:

"My broad conclusion is that information is not reducible to natural causes, and that the origin of information is best sought in intelligent causes. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow."

You may now consider your entire post reduced to bull shit.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217685 Mar 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1 "Scientists affiliated with Biologic Institute are working from the idea that life appears to have been designed because it really was designed. Thatís a hypothesis, not a theory, and while it obviously has huge philosophical implications (made even more huge by the the fact it appears to be correct) it doesnít do much for biology if left at that."
http://www.biologicinstitute.org/about - the ID movement's web page.
Please note "not a theory"
Yes, the Biologic Institute has a website.

You claimed "Intelligent Design" has a website.

It does not. It cannot, because Intelligent Design is a hypothesis about biological origins and diversity. A hypothesis cannot create a website, or hire someone to create a website. It is not a person, and cannot engage in transactions necessary to having a website.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217686 Mar 7, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Reveal anything about yourself on this site and these slimeball atheists will use it against you. It is best not to.
But theists will just make stuff up and use that.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217687 Mar 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Harris clearly links behavior to beliefs.
2. Harris didn't blame Jews for the Holocaust.
3. It's amazing you went there - in a 'this should be beneath you' kind of way. Incidentally, it's arguments like the ones you're presenting, and the other theists when they use blatant ignorance and dishonesty, that keep me away from this site. It's so worthless to discuss things with people who do not respect honesty, rationality, scholarship, scientific investigation, history, and will use any means at their disposal to support their failure of a belief system.
Yes, Harris links behavior to beliefs.

Then he explains that he thinks it morally acceptable to kill people preemptively for their beliefs, in certain cases, before the dangerous behavior occurs.

Then he describes this as an "extraordinary proposition".

Linking behavior to beliefs is not an extraordinary proposition. It happens every day.

The extraordinary proposition is the preemptive killing. If you were not stupid, or alternatively, a liar, you would acknowledge this obvious point of his quotation.

And Harris absolutely blamed the Jews for the Holocaust.

"The End of Faith" -Sam Harris, pp. 93-94:

"The gravity of Jewish suffering over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust, makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles upon themselves. This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth. Prior to the rise of the church, Jews became the objects of suspicion and occasional persecution for their refusal to assimilate, for the insularity and professed superiority of their religious culture-that is, for the content of their own unreasonable, sectarian beliefs. The dogma of a "chosen people," while at least implicit in most faiths, achieved a stridence in Judaism that was unknown in the ancient world. Among cultures that worshiped a plurality of Gods, the later monotheism of the Jews proved indigestible. And while their explicit demonization as a people required the mad work of the Christian church, the ideology of Judaism remains a lightning rod for intolerance to this day."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217688 Mar 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Every time I asked you to present it, you wrote the above. You never presented it, not once.
I understand why - you're not capable of it. Don't feel impotent here, though, no ID person is. They don't have a working theory. They claim to have a hypothesis but, as I've demonstrated over and over, they don't even have that. At best, they have an inference.
That's all you have - a really, really, really strong desire.
I posted the theoretical framework 8 times.

I refused to post it any more, and I persist in that refusal, as two pages later on the thread, some idiot similar to you will again say, "there is no theory. If there is, show it".

So, thanks, but no.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217689 Mar 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
If the above were true, then the ID movement wouldn't exist. Natural selection is the unifying framework theory of all biological sciences.
Clearly, all ID people fail to understand Natural selection - just as you do.
ID scientists accept natural selection, and have acknowledged it hundreds of times.

I understand natural selection. You are the one who described mutation and natural selection as random, then you described it as non-random, then you described it as random, again.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217690 Mar 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You have, over and over again. And you will again, the moment you begin talking about ID. All of the mathematical models you presented were exactly "it really really looks designed, so there!" and all of them fail because they are relying on inference alone, not the testing of hypothesized relationships.
In other words, natural selection is the better explanation than every single study claimed to support ID carried out by an ID person.
Your understanding of ID is retarded. You know less about it than a pig knows about the Mayan calendar.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217691 Mar 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, you failed to read the entire paragraph. Not surprised.
Hi, welcome.
You didn't answer. What was the "extraordinary claim" Harris was referring to in the quotation?

I read the entire paragraph. I posted the entire paragraph myself earlier.

What was Harris referring to as an "extraordinary claim"?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#217692 Mar 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
1. She referred to Intelligent Design as "they", Read it. That's what she said. If you want to supply a different meaning for the plain words, talk to her, not me.
Hiding did not use the most precise language. But that she was writing of the DI is abundantly clear, except perhaps to the brain damaged.
Buck Crick wrote:
2. I supplied a theoretical framework. Like Hiding, you just didn't like it. Sorry.
You could have, once again, posted what this supposed theoretical framework is. You didn't. All you have ever done is claim it exists without stating what it is. The things you have stated barely rise to "this is a possible idea". Certainly not a theoretical framework.

And, given that even the ID mavens at the DI say such a framework does not exist...I would say you are trying to pull it out of your arse.
Buck Crick wrote:
3. ID accepts natural selection. Here is Richard Dawkin's review of Michael Behe (a leading ID proponent) writing in his second book:
" Descent with modification gives him [Behe] no problems, nor does natural selection."
Here is an excerpt from Michael Behe (leading ID proponent) from his book, "Darwin's Black Box"
"... To explain that Darwinian evolution cannot explain everything in nature is not to say that evolution, random mutation, and natural selection do not occur; they have been observed (at least in cases of microevolution) many different times. Like the sequence analysis, I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent." -pp. 175-176
Again, from "Darwin's Black Box", Michael Behe acknowledging natural selection:
"... evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects, genetic drift, gene flow, linkage, meiotic drive, transposition (the transfer of gene between widely separated species by nonsexual means), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems may have been designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important."
Also, the Discovery Institute website, confirming natural selection:
"Natural selection in this case was a conserving force which occasioned a minor modification..."
Depends on which ID maven you talk to. Behe, I will grant, is somewhat friendly to the idea of natural selection. And even Behe claims there are limits on natural selection...hence his idiocy on "limits of evolution". Even you point this out above, proving that Behe does not accept all of natural selection. He certainly doesn't accept it as a key factor in evolution.

And I see you ignored the passage from Pandas and People which clearly states that natural selection is insufficient.
Buck Crick wrote:
4. Dembski has never, nor have I, offered the argument "because it looks designed". You are not capable of understanding Dembski's mathematics, but maybe you can understand his plain english words:
"My broad conclusion is that information is not reducible to natural causes, and that the origin of information is best sought in intelligent causes. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow."
You may now consider your entire post reduced to bull shit.
BS. Pure and simple. "Because it looks designed" is what Dembski's Design Inference is all about. Otherwise...pay close attention...he would not be inferring design.

And quote you provide shows he says "because it looks designed". Maybe using $10 words. And trying to sound sciency. But that is what he is saying...."because the information looks designed."

Buck thinks Dembski says..."Oh, this doesn't look designed at all. Which is why I infer design." Right Buck. Pull another.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#217693 Mar 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice post.
Nah, many of the paper's Buck presented - the mathematical models purporting to measure a given structure for its "design" and then comparing that to man made designs are exactly "wow, it really, really, really looks designed! Therefore there must be a designer!"
Such studies are poor on so many fronts, it's hard to know where to begin. Anyways, Buck couldn't answer a single critique that I posed of those poor studies and just ignored all my comments on them.
Natural selection produces apparent design. So that's all the ID people are measuring - they're confusing apparent design with design and no measurement they can make can rectify that.
How does one measure design? How does one measure apparent design?

ID theorists don't do that. Where did you hear such a thing?

No wonder you don't understand ID. You have latched on to false information.

Tell me, when you study something of unknown origin, how do you determine if it is a product of design or apparent design? Is it possible to distinguish? Do you just ask Richard Dawkins? Guess? Assume? Don't think about it? Scratch your head?

God forbid science could help answer it for you. That would be so scary. Right?

I had forgotten just how intellectually inept you are. But your ignorance is wrapped in such self-assurance. It's almost charming.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 19 min It aint necessari... 837,808
9/11&bin 20 min REV CAROL 1
Should Black People in the USA Leave America an... (May '13) 22 min dkanela 694
China sends armed officers to Nepal for relief ops 24 min ricardosanders 3
No one should blaspheme Prophet Mohammad, peace... 50 min Tony17 447
How to recover whatsapp deleted messages (Jun '13) 54 min KateSunshine 17
Tamil vs Kannada. Which one is the oldest langu... (Oct '12) 1 hr Naveen kumar 1,440
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr dollarsbill 4,227
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr Tony17 589,734
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 hr Rosa_Winkel 612,163
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 5 hr set free in truth 176,854
More from around the web