Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 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.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220966 Mar 23, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Buck and the Discovery Institute maintain that Intelligent Design is secular science. Yesterday, Casey Luskin, spokesperson for the Discovery Institute, wrote an opinion piece in which he says criticism of ID in school classrooms must be balanced with "traditional religion".
biologist Jerry Coyne makes a good point...
Quote
What’s especially telling about Luskin’s letter is his tacit admission that ID, if it’s to be criticized in any class, must be balanced with “traditional religion”. If ID isn’t religious, and is, as the Discovery Institute claims, purely science, and if its scientific conclusions point to the existence of a designer with intelligence, why on Earth would that have anything to do with “traditional religion”? I believe Michael Behe said that the designer could have been a space alien. Worship of aliens is not “traditional religion.”
End quote
--Why Evolution is True Blog
Yes, why would criticism of a secular scientific theory have to be balanced by traditional religion? Would criticism of the theory of the luminiferous ether have to be balanced by religion? Would the phlogiston theory of fire?
The fact that Luskin thinks dissing ID must be balanced by religion...well...says it all. Luskin really thinks ID is religion. He just isn't honest enough to say so in public.
You can read Dr. Coyne's post, along with Luskin's entire opinion piece, here...
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/...
Point out in Luskin's letter where he call for criticism of ID to "be balanced by traditional religion".

You're lying again. Luskin didn't say that. Nowhere.

What Luskin complained about was a text that was referred to as "religion friendly", when it has no semblance of being friendly to "traditional religion".

He's right. It says “As scientists, we must toil and labor and toil again to silence God.”

Luskin says that is not friendly to "traditional religion".

He does not call for criticism of ID to be balanced by religion.

The author of your cited article is a liar, and you are a liar.

Again, prove me wrong from Luskin's letter.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Redondo Beach, CA

#220967 Mar 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You may not agree with the way Stalin and Hitler promoted their beliefs, but you share many of them.
Their antipathy toward the religious, their Darwinism, it is prevalent among you liberal atheists.
You are Stalinist in many ways.
YOU ASKED FOR IT
What are the "many" beliefs you would say I share with Stalin and Hitler?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#220968 Mar 23, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you not embarrassed by this constant repetition of baseless personal smear of every source that disagrees with you?
You lie about Lonnig. You lie about David Barton. I proved you lied about Michael Behe, and doctored a quotation from him.
Are you embarrassed at all?
You are not just a disgraced liar, you are a living insult to science and math.
Addition to list:

Now Dagwood has lied about Casey Luskin.

...We wait to see who's next.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#220969 Mar 23, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, they haven't mapped the ENTIRE observable universe. There are large gaps in observations along the galactic plane.
They've mapped enough to make fairly accurate estimates of the real numbers, though.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/22/22...

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#220971 Mar 23, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>The Sloan Digital Sky Survey was pretty amazing, and they have continued to use the telescope and its spectroscopes for further projects. IIRC, it was the first data to show the web-like structure in galactic clusters.
I love the videos they make showing the large scale structure.

Mind boggling to see all the galaxies that HAVE been mapped.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#220972 Mar 23, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I love the videos they make showing the large scale structure.
Mind boggling to see all the galaxies that HAVE been mapped.
Here is the Christian map of the universe:

http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/syllabi/g/...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#220973 Mar 23, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as I can see, the opinion that an agent had to be responsible for initiation the Big bang comes fro the article's author, Dr. Leslie Wickman. Wickman's masters degrees are in aeronautical and astronautic engineering and her PhD is in human factors and biomechanics. Impressive as that it, it does leave her qualifications in astrophysics open to question. Dr. Wickman is also an inspirational speaker who focuses on the interface between science and theology, which suggests that her opinions are not without bias.
She also cites Fred Hoyles famous quip,“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics." Ironic, considering that, while he coined the term, "Big Bang," Hoyle did so in opposition to the theory, arguing instead for a "steady state" universe. He regarded it as pseudoscience, as irrational and unscientific as were arguments for a creator. Now Wickman uses his quip in support for another pseudoscientific argument in favor of a creator.
Wickman's mistake, from my point of view, is to try to speak as a scientist and as a religious apologist in the same breath. She compounds that error by relying on credentials that are outside of the fields on which she relies to support her thesis.
Arguing from authority is one of the basic fallacies, but if one is going to engage in it anyway, one should at least use greater ones than Wickman.
It is bigoted to discredit someone because she "speak(s) as a scientist and as a religious apologist. Especially in the context of addressing an audience including both.

You also ignore the fact that the Big Bang has been significantly affirmed as a theory.

What you should be pondering is how an ancient book beat scientists to that by about 5,000 years.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#220974 Mar 23, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>It is bigoted to discredit someone because she "speak(s) as a scientist and as a religious apologist. Especially in the context of addressing an audience including both.

You also ignore the fact that the Big Bang has been significantly affirmed as a theory.

What you should be pondering is how an ancient book beat scientists to that by about 5,000 years.
Gravity is a theory, too.

Care to test it?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#220975 Mar 23, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
It is bigoted to discredit someone because she "speak(s) as a scientist and as a religious apologist. Especially in the context of addressing an audience including both.
You also ignore the fact that the Big Bang has been significantly affirmed as a theory.
What you should be pondering is how an ancient book beat scientists to that by about 5,000 years.
Not bigoted in the least. One can speak as a scientist, limiting oneself to that field. One can speak as a religious apologist, limiting oneself to theological matters. But when one attempts to combine the two, interjecting theological conclusions that the data does not support, one steps away from the basic principles of science: "... test ideas by experiment and observation; build on those ideas that pass the test; reject the ones that fail; follow the evidence wherever it leads; and question everything." - Neil deGrasse Tyson in the first episode of "Cosmos." Pointing out that a scientist has departed from that standard is accurate, not bigoted.

I've acknowledged that the community of astrophysicists has confirmed the Big Bang theory for many years. I may ignore some things, but not that. As to your ancient book, it did not beat the scientists at all. It simply told a story, one so vague in terms of science that any one of a thousand conclusion could have been made to fit. Only your powerful need to validate your book in any way possible prevents you from seeing that for yourself.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#220976 Mar 23, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
....
What you should be pondering is how an ancient book beat scientists to that by about 5,000 years.
The Sumerian texts aren't books, they are tablets.

Hail Marduk !

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#220977 Mar 23, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Gravity is a theory, too.
Care to test it?
Christards can't tell a theory from a fairytale. They think fairytales are reality.

One would think if you were going to choose a fantasy world to live in you would pick one more pleasant than the violent and perverted world of the Torah.

Christian Creationists are nothing more than Bronze age Jews.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#220978 Mar 23, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Not bigoted in the least. One can speak as a scientist, limiting oneself to that field. One can speak as a religious apologist, limiting oneself to theological matters. But when one attempts to combine the two, interjecting theological conclusions that the data does not support, one steps away from the basic principles of science: "... test ideas by experiment and observation; build on those ideas that pass the test; reject the ones that fail; follow the evidence wherever it leads; and question everything." - Neil deGrasse Tyson in the first episode of "Cosmos." Pointing out that a scientist has departed from that standard is accurate, not bigoted.
I've acknowledged that the community of astrophysicists has confirmed the Big Bang theory for many years. I may ignore some things, but not that. As to your ancient book, it did not beat the scientists at all. It simply told a story, one so vague in terms of science that any one of a thousand conclusion could have been made to fit. Only your powerful need to validate your book in any way possible prevents you from seeing that for yourself.
If Kalimare has a university degree, it seems all he can do with it now is wipe his ass with it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#220979 Mar 23, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Not bigoted in the least. One can speak as a scientist, limiting oneself to that field. One can speak as a religious apologist, limiting oneself to theological matters. But when one attempts to combine the two, interjecting theological conclusions that the data does not support, one steps away from the basic principles of science: "... test ideas by experiment and observation; build on those ideas that pass the test; reject the ones that fail; follow the evidence wherever it leads; and question everything." - Neil deGrasse Tyson in the first episode of "Cosmos." Pointing out that a scientist has departed from that standard is accurate, not bigoted.
I've acknowledged that the community of astrophysicists has confirmed the Big Bang theory for many years. I may ignore some things, but not that. As to your ancient book, it did not beat the scientists at all. It simply told a story, one so vague in terms of science that any one of a thousand conclusion could have been made to fit. Only your powerful need to validate your book in any way possible prevents you from seeing that for yourself.
She departed from no standard. She simply noted a connection between the science and the Bible. Considering the audience she was addressing, perfectly proper. Again, your bias was unintentionally exposed.

I hail from a time when science did not hail the Big Bang theory. It was a theological doctrine that God created the universe out of nothing, and mocked by science. As noted in the article, the Bible is not intended as a scientific book. And yet, in the very first chapters, it contains the Big Bang, life coming from the ground, and originally existing genderless.

I have no need to validate the Bible. A legitimate God is perfectly capable of taking care of that Himself. I do enjoy pointing out the 'logical atheist' denials of those who have a desperate need to deny and discredit a God they don't believe exists...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#220980 Mar 23, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
If Kalimare has a university degree, it seems all he can do with it now is wipe his ass with it.
Your posts tell us all we need to know about your education...
tricki

Birdsboro, PA

#220981 Mar 23, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
The basic problem with that question is that it assumes that all atheists think alike. Individual atheists may or may not have an answer for you, but each one will reflect the thinking of only that one person. Those who care about explaining the universe (not all do) will tend to turn to science, but only those who have chosen astrophysics for a career will be able to answer with any real confidence. Odds are you won't be able to understand any of those answer (don't fret--neither would I).
The short answer is that few of us have ideas about the origin, history, or current state of the universe that we can successfully defend. We're too busy earning our livings, fixing our cars, cleaning our houses, and pursuing our other interests to put the time into understanding the science beyond a fairly basic level.
And ultimately, as you intuited, atheists have no duty to explain themselves to you or anyone else, no more duty to defend their lack of belief than you have to defend your beliefs. It is, quite frankly, none of your business.
true

brilliant
tricki

Birdsboro, PA

#220982 Mar 23, 2014
tricki wrote:
He is all powerful.
So, what's your best guess.
Then I'll show the answer!
<quoted text>
no guess

how'd i know?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#220983 Mar 23, 2014
Although I accept "atheist" as a designation to avoid pointless argument, technically I am merely a skeptic, dismissing many religious claims as inconsistent with known science or, unsubstantiated, or indeterminate, but not ruling all of them out altogether. I define my skepticism by my reaction to many ideas: "That's interesting--I wonder whether it's true."

I apply that skepticism to more than just religion and more than just outlandish claims like bigfoot, extraterrestrial visitations, chemtrails, unreferenced statistics, and conspiracy theories in general. I'm especially skeptical of ideas that resonate with what I would like to believe because giving attractive ideas a pass can lead to endless chains of errors and misconceptions.

I would love to believe, for instance, that I am inherently superior to most other people. Alas, no evidence supports that. Same with the ideas that I an immortal part of myself will survive my physical death or that the good that I do can ever compensate for any unintentional harm that I may have done in the past.

Even at my advanced age, for instance, I still feel bad that I accidentally hurt one of my brothers at the age of four and that I may have broken or dislocated the arm of someone who tried to pick my pocket on a Boston subway when I was in my teens. That I have also saved a few lives and once protected a young girl from three rapists changes none of that. There's no balance sheet for things like that, nor can I be forgiven by any except the few whom I have wronged. None of us can.

So there it is. I am a skeptic. Call me atheist if you like, though--I really don't mind.
tricki

Birdsboro, PA

#220984 Mar 23, 2014
tricki wrote:
<quoted text>
true
brilliant
It is, quite frankly, none of your business. atheist

thanks for the rebuke

i should a known better
tricki

Birdsboro, PA

#220985 Mar 23, 2014
how do you restrain yourself girls?

one half hour w/o an interruption. happens all the time, too.

(way ahead of you babe. WAY WAY ahead)

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#220986 Mar 23, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
Although I accept "atheist" as a designation to avoid pointless argument, technically I am merely a skeptic, dismissing many religious claims as inconsistent with known science or, unsubstantiated, or indeterminate, but not ruling all of them out altogether. I define my skepticism by my reaction to many ideas: "That's interesting--I wonder whether it's true."

I apply that skepticism to more than just religion and more than just outlandish claims like bigfoot, extraterrestrial visitations, chemtrails, unreferenced statistics, and conspiracy theories in general. I'm especially skeptical of ideas that resonate with what I would like to believe because giving attractive ideas a pass can lead to endless chains of errors and misconceptions.

I would love to believe, for instance, that I am inherently superior to most other people. Alas, no evidence supports that. Same with the ideas that I an immortal part of myself will survive my physical death or that the good that I do can ever compensate for any unintentional harm that I may have done in the past.

Even at my advanced age, for instance, I still feel bad that I accidentally hurt one of my brothers at the age of four and that I may have broken or dislocated the arm of someone who tried to pick my pocket on a Boston subway when I was in my teens. That I have also saved a few lives and once protected a young girl from three rapists changes none of that. There's no balance sheet for things like that, nor can I be forgiven by any except the few whom I have wronged. None of us can.

So there it is. I am a skeptic. Call me atheist if you like, though--I really don't mind.
Well said.

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 (Mar '17) 7 min Quivering Lip Lib... 80,194
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 10 min AnthonyMN 701,587
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Dang Jersey Piney 448,403
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Sammy 995,788
I'm ON BOARD: James Harden for NBA MVP 3 hr Doctor REALITY 2
Why does Draymond Green act like such a BLEEP! ... 3 hr Doctor REALITY 10
Judas Iscariot and Mark Fuhrman 3 hr Doctor REALITY 44