Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258473 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218719 Mar 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Yeah, inevitable. This isn't worth the effort to write more than that there is zero doubt that such [imposed celibacy and relatively safe and easy access boys] will generate priest-altar boy sex. Zero.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Just because you write your opinion does not make it fact. But then again, you're not trustworthy with statistics.....
I might as well be posting to a tree stump.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218720 Mar 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Once you remove a piece of the mousetrap, it's no longer a mousetrap. Your video vids yes that, he calls it a tie clip or a paperweight. Tie clips and paperweights are not mousetraps, IANS. Dumb ass.
Why don't you take a break for awhile and put your computer in front of a tree stump for me, will you. I want to see if I can explain this stuff to the stump instead.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218721 Mar 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
The reason the arch example does not indicate design, or irreducible complexity, is that it lacks complex specified information.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Good point. I hadn't considered that.
Is this the Redneck or the stump posting now?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218722 Mar 13, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Evidence suggests your idea of random chance, that the human brain and human consciousness is the result of random combinations of material particles moving away from chaos, is far more absurd than any concept of reincarnation I have seen.
There are many natural examples of order arising from apparent chaos. The chunks of matter that eventually came together to form the earth embody a type of order - a symmetry in this case - that might suggest an intelligent designer had formed them together. After all, what are the odds of those pieces just arranging themselves into a pattern of such specified complexity by "random chance"? What are the odds of pieces of liquid soap randomly arranging themselves into a perfect spherules of soap, or of H2O molecules arranging themselves in snowflakes by random chance in (apparently) clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics?

If you can see the fallacy in those arguments, then you can see the fallacy in your own argument. According to the theory of evolution, matter arranges itself into brains not by random chance, but by the steady and relentless application over deep time of natural principles that favor such arrangements over others - principles able to overcome the tendency for local disorder in open systems.

Apologists for design typically substitute the term "random" for "undesigned." in teleological arguments. Mutations may be random, but the process selecting some over others is not. It is directional, just as the appearance of new chunks of matter to an accreting planetesimal is "random," but the pressure to organize into a spherical form (or oblate spheroid, more precisely) is not. Gravity relentlessly pulls toward the center of mass, not in random directions. The process is mindless - blind, unplanned, undesigned, ateleological - not random.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218723 Mar 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
"Your particular God concept/view of justice represents the height of irresponsibility and injustice. Your chosen religion has us born as reprobates, guilty before we’ve even taken a single breath, and responsible for things we’ve never done. It offers instant undeserved forgiveness for the most horrible of crimes and punishes people whose only crime is disbelief. Forever.

"This justice you so admire is no such thing. It’s divine edict, it’s arbitrary, capricious and ultimately unjust and immoral ... It advocates slavery, denigrates women, curses homosexuals, orders the stoning of unruly children, sanctioning wars of extermination, condones human sacrifices, and poisons every mind it touches. It includes only one unforgivable crime, disbelief. Is that just?"
lightbeamrider wrote:
And that is why you associate belief in God as a thought crime. Not a thought error.
Is that right? Then you think after reading that passage from Dillahunty that I want people punished for their god belief, do you?

Faith can be called an error, and even a sin against the self (sin meant in a secular and metaphorical sense). But I have never called it a thought crime.

A thought crime, as Dillhunty illustrates with his reference to sentencing someone to eternal torture for the thought crime of unbelief in your god, requires punishment or the threat of it for the thought.

Have I suggested that? No. I'll leave that kind of thing to your god.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218724 Mar 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Would you like me to compare all atheists to Stalin or McVeigh?
Not again. Haven't you beaten that horse to its death yet?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#218725 Mar 13, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>You're easily confused.

Why is that?
More speculative projection.

Yawn.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218726 Mar 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a different argument from irreducible complexity (IC). Behe introduced the mousetrap as an example of IC, not specified complexity (SC).
Has Dembski ever defined that term mathematically? It was an issue previously.
<quoted text>
Yes, that's correct. If the rock spelled out E=mc2 (or better yet "energy equals mass times the speed of light squared"), that specified complexity would prove that intelligence had been there.
But that is true of any surface. This particular formation, like Behe's mousetrap, are offered as examples of apparent irreducible complexity, which, if present, is a different kind of evidence of intelligent design.
Now reconsider your comment above, "The reason the arch example does not indicate design, or irreducible complexity, is that it lacks complex specified information". An object indicates intelligent design if it contains either IC or SC. We should reword that, "The reason the arch example does not indicate design is because it contains neither irreducible complexity nor complex specified information, although on first blush, it might appear to be irreducibly complex."
Just for completeness sake, we note that images of Jesus in toast are examples of apparent specified complexity just as the mousetrap was an example of apparent but false irreducible complexity..
The mousetrap is irreducibly complex, and illustrates the concept in simplistic terms. The rebuttals are logically flawed, for reasons outlined. I'm not sure the arch qualifies as either IC or CSI. Is that the natural stone arch I have seen previously, or a man-made arch? The natural arch lacks complexity, specified or otherwise.

The hypothesis of ID is much more rigorous than things "looking" designed. As Behe pointed out, the tactic of Miller and McDonald is a visual PR ploy for Darwinism, which falls apart on scrutiny. I admit it is effective on the lay audience, like cigarette commercials with no warnings, or an Obama political ad. Unseemly for people calling themselves scientists, though.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#218728 Mar 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many natural examples of order arising from apparent chaos. The chunks of matter that eventually came together to form the earth embody a type of order - a symmetry in this case - that might suggest an intelligent designer had formed them together. After all, what are the odds of those pieces just arranging themselves into a pattern of such specified complexity by "random chance"? What are the odds of pieces of liquid soap randomly arranging themselves into a perfect spherules of soap, or of H2O molecules arranging themselves in snowflakes by random chance in (apparently) clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics?
If you can see the fallacy in those arguments, then you can see the fallacy in your own argument. According to the theory of evolution, matter arranges itself into brains not by random chance, but by the steady and relentless application over deep time of natural principles that favor such arrangements over others - principles able to overcome the tendency for local disorder in open systems.
Apologists for design typically substitute the term "random" for "undesigned." in teleological arguments. Mutations may be random, but the process selecting some over others is not. It is directional, just as the appearance of new chunks of matter to an accreting planetesimal is "random," but the pressure to organize into a spherical form (or oblate spheroid, more precisely) is not. Gravity relentlessly pulls toward the center of mass, not in random directions. The process is mindless - blind, unplanned, undesigned, ateleological - not random.
Products resulting from random phenomena are random. The directional selection relies on random events, its result is random.

Selection is not "directional", because environmental forces are random and variable.

This uncertainty is why Harvard's greatest evolutionist, Ernst Mayr, said, "Furthermore, the objective of selection may change from one generation to the next, as environmental circumstances vary."

Darwinian evolution is random, blind, and non-directional.

The powers ascribed to it are almost mystical, like Buddhism.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218729 Mar 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
If that's the case, then any book means what ever the reader wants it to be. Do you believe that?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you prevent it? Can anybody?
Ah the 'rational atheist' oxymoron avoids answering the question with an idiotic diversion.

So childish.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#218730 Mar 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
They'll have a **different** functionality. Why is this such a difficult concept for you?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Point?
Move on. This isn't for you.
Clearly his question 'isn't for you', which is why the resident 'rational atheist' oxymoron is running again...

Here's a point;

How can you maintain integrity without addressing the vast difference between the functional design of heterosexual intercourse and the abusive violation of anal sex?

My guess is this one 'isn't for you' either.

Smirk.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218731 Mar 13, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
So I bought a Toshiba Kira 7i to use on the bus to and from work. Not a cheap date. But a hell of a machine, even if I find Windows 8 invasive. Only about a week after buying it, I fell on the way to the bus stop. The Kira went flying out of my bag, hit the pavement, and lost a small chunk out of the corner of its case in the process. It was like getting a ding from a shopping cart in the door of a new car. No real problem -- but dang. Then steps in Kira Platinum Support -- included with the price of the machine. I'm ready to pay for replacing the case just cuz it's new and now has a ding. Toshiba won't here of it. They'll send a box to ship the little machine to them, replace the case, and ship it back -- no charge. If you need an ultralight, just sayin'.
Nice story.

I have one that is almost the opposite - regarding Mitsubishi last decade. A friend bought one, it failed, and they wouldn't help her at all. I would avoid that company. Good to hear about Toshiba
tricki

Boyertown, PA

#218732 Mar 13, 2014
"Your chosen religion has us born as reprobates..." you have feet? your gawds do that? a stomach? vocal chords? gawds of atheists do that?

love, kindness, generosity? god done them, too?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218733 Mar 13, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. what practical value does religion have when, instead of medical treatment, a parent believes prayer is the answer and a child dies?
It's good for the clergy. It beats working for a living.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218734 Mar 13, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. don't you find Ar-Ar entertaining ??.... to me, he's great fun, makes me think and, best of all, has an answer for every critique. It's amazing, flabbergasting! Look, up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's Ar-Ar ..
Not any more. I was his lone defender among the unbelievers posting here at one time.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218735 Mar 13, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
If in power [atheists] would throw you under the bus in a heartbeat. Watch Killing Fields. That is atheism in power.
Again?

Your chief argument for preserving your church seems to be that without it, atheists will kill you. Is that about right?

You really have nothing if you have to resort to this tired and irrelevant argument over and again.

Tell us something positive about your church instead of maligning humanists. Tell us a reason why we should protect and preserve it rather than work for its diminution. The argument from charity has pretty well been debunked by multiple examples of documented church stinginess offset by no counterexamples yet.

What else do you have? How about an argument from morality? Why don't you tell us what a potent moral force your church is, and how much higher in quality people are for their experience being raised as a Christian rather than like us humanists posting here?

Or, if not that, give us any other argument to value your church rather than consider it the blight that many of us do. Is your church the last bastion in the defense of America from humanist killing fields?

Sorry, but every time I see that slanderous garbage from a Christian, it makes me want to put things back in proper perspective, which means repeating a piece of the litany of your church's sins and failures. If you consider that a fair trade, please keep telling us about Pol Pot and Stalin, and I'll tell you about Christianity.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218736 Mar 13, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Material evolution? Is that like biological evolution,cultural evolution,both or neither?
Buck Crick wrote:
It's not my argument. It's the logical extension of materialist philosophy. If our biological body and mind is a product of material evolution, as you say it is, slave-holding is just as moral as anti-slavery.
It is your argument. You offered it.

Once again, what is material evolution? I can't find the phrase in the context of biological or cultural evolution. I just outlined material evolution during the first three minutes of the universe.

So, yeah, I'd say it's your argument.

And what shows that it is wrong is the empirical contradictory evidence - the tens of millions of us that accept evolutionary theory, but not your conclusions about what we ought to feel and think.
Buck Crick wrote:
As a survival mechanism, it is consistent with Darwin's paradigm, and actually more consistent than the anti-slavery.
You ignore the empirical evidence. The slavery meme is going extinct. The fittest meme is the antislavery meme.

Of course, this is not due to biological evolution any more. It is due to the advent of culture, another gift of evolution, and cultural evolution - meme selection. We are shaped by both of these. Your argument is simply divorced from the reality that you can see all around you.

Incidentally, meme selection in the field of ethics is the process by which rational ethics has modified biblical ethics for centuries. As we grow, it is reflected there - first with the revised, kinder gentler deity of the New Testament, then with the abolition of torture and execution for such "crimes" as blasphemy, heresy, apostasy, then the abolition of slavery, and now with the tendency to gainsay hellfire theology as you have seen from Susie D and Ghost Writer on another thread.

That's cultural evolution through meme selection. a deliberative (not blind) process invoking reason and compassion. So forget biological evolution in this context. It's not the principal player in the progress of mankind any more.
Buck Crick wrote:
The evolutionary mechanism would have worked superbly if not for those moralizing religious people insisting on absolute principles. It's the same old tale - religious people interfering with science.
Regarding religious morals, we can do better than that. The bible condones slavery, and most Southern Americans that could afford slaves, almost all of which were Christians, found no impediment to owning them in their bibles.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218737 Mar 13, 2014
wilderide wrote:
Then simply state it again. However, I'm not asking for your opinion, do you know the doctrinal answer?
wilderide wrote:
Sorry, but I feel no need to cater to your reading and comprehension issues. Go back and read for yourself. Or don't. Either way.
Good answer. Let him pay attention the first time. or take notes and ask you about them. Why coddle intellectual cripples by repeating entire arguments? After a lifetime of carefully avoiding learning and failing to develop the data base and study skills necessary for learning, suddenly, you are asked to bring them up to speed in a post or two, then insulted for for failing.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218738 Mar 13, 2014
wilderide wrote:
I know, right? And their idea of rhetorical strategy never seems to develop beyond "let me tell you what you think". No wonder the non-religious often think the religious are stupid.
Regarding rhetorical strategy, don't forget "so's yer mother" and Pol Pot.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#218739 Mar 13, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
Stalin was raised christian
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Raised Christian means nothing
You don't seem to think that's meaningful. Others do.

Christians want to put Christian prayers, the Ten Commandments, and pseudoscience in the schools, but as Stalin and Hitler taught us, and as you affirm here, being raised Christian means nothing. The citizens of Nazi Germany were also raised Christian. A lot of good that did you if you were a German Jew then and there.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
most of those murdering psychopaths gave up a religion and became a humanist or some shit.
This is all you have, isn't it?

Perhaps you'd like to filed the challenge I just offered lightbeamrider. How about an argument from morality? Why don't you tell us what a potent moral force your church is, and how much higher in quality people are for their experience being raised as a Christian. That might be a little more difficult for you given your observation that being "raised Christian means nothing"

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 38 min Russian Amb Grope... 2,630
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 hr Trump Worshiper 119,219
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 hr Trump Worshiper 679,164
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 4 hr earthly science f... 445,839
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 4 hr Holy Jehowa Witness 46,214
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 4 hr Trumps worshiper 33,216
Melania Trump's hair shines in Saudi sun 4 hr Trumps worshiper 5
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) Thu UMAKEWORLDPEACEUM... 982,141
More from around the web