Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 20 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.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128460 Oct 8, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
"The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could be supported as only a possibility, not an established fact.[9][10] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concern...
Read those with a less jaundiced eye.
Now you're an apologist for the Catholic Church.

What next, the Inquisition was like a fraternity prank?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#128461 Oct 8, 2012
Not if it violates the Constitution.
Dave Nelson wrote:
The Constitution is subject to interpretation.
Which doesn't change the fact that it still overrules majority rule.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Supreme Court justices are not democratically elected.
Nope, they are appointed by Presidents and confirmed by the Senate, who *are* democratically elected.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You worship them?
Nope. Just as I don't worship Presidents and Senators and Representatives and Governors and County Councils, but I still respect their authority.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#128462 Oct 8, 2012
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a superficial knowledge and understanding of the Hypatia incident and other things.
What, that the bishop of Alexandria at the time lead a mob that attacked and killed Hypatia because she had the nerve to be a woman doing scholarship at a pagan temple that dualed as a library?
Simple and inescapable fact. This "modern secularism" got here directly through the Christian religion preserving, and encouraging the study of ancient texts that would have been buried after the fall of Rome.
The encouraging of the study of ancient texts didn't happen until the renaisance. Until that time, the priests were quite happy to scrape off earlier writings on parchment to replace them by their own records. Fortunately, they occasionally did a poor job and we can recover the originals (like the Archimedes palimpset).
Man had thousands of years and many cultures and civilizations where he could have advanced, but he didn't. It took that one. Your random evolution finding the right environment.
And this is at least a good point. I would suggest the book by Toby Huff comparing Medieval Europe and the Islamic world at the time. There were certainly institutions in Europe that encouraged the scientific revolution and the church at least occasionally supported those institutions, although always timidly and often retracting its support. Ultimately, it was looking for support of its own dogma and anything that went against that dogma was heretical and would lead to ex-communication. Even Aquinas was ex-communicated. Many of the brave men that lead to the development of logic were priests, but they were also often rejected by the church at the time.
You are a fanatic.
I am thinking the same about you. You clearly misinterpret history to your liking a lot.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#128463 Oct 8, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhm..."ignorant" literally means "does not know." From google:
"ig·no·rant/&#712;ign &#601;r&#601;nt/
Adjective:
Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy"."
Just as I am uneducated in religion and dishwashing, you are uneducated in biological science.
:)
I am uneducated in science, but not ignorant of it.

Ignorant: Lacking in knowledge.

I know the diff between ignorant & stupid.

---

You can tkake night classes to hone your dishwashing skills. Then you can find a man.:)

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#128464 Oct 8, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm, that's a Pew Research Center poll from: http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/sectio...
They included people trained in medicine who are part of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)- I'd like to see which scientists disagreed with evolution. I would bet it would be the medical ones or those utterly not involved in biological research. Medicine hails from a dualist tradition - but us evolutionary theorists are challenging that, showing that they're wrong, and changing the field. It's a work in progress, but in the future, medicine will be unified by evolution, as all biological sciences are.
There is no competing theory to evolution to explain evolution the observation. Evolution literally is "allelic frequency change over time." It is directly observable, objectively measurable. The theory exists to explain it.
Evolution has never been disproved, not once.
To answer your question. We have the fossil record. How much of it do you understand? Fossils get older the deeper you dig; younger species are closer to the surface (after the geological law of original horizontality; things are buried from oldest to newest).
So we know how old specimens are. We can work out their morphology - based on morphology, we can draw up relationships based on similarity. For example, your shoulders are a ball and socket joint that can rotate 360 degrees. You can turn around on the X-axis if you're hanging by one arm. The same is true of all the great apes, and monkeys, but not true of other mammals, like canines and felines. So we know that humans fit into the primate clade (group), based on this one morphological observation (there are many that make us primates; that are only shared by primates that we have).
Second, on some specimens we can sequence their genetic material. The genes and, more importantly, the mutations and genetic insertions (from viruses and bacteria) can be compared to any species we can sequence - and we can draw up lines of relationships here, too (b/c non-coding sequences build up mutations. If these are shared between species, they are related.).
If species did not have evolutionary relationships, if species were separately created, we would not observe what we observe in nature. Chickens would not be carrying around ancient reptilian genes that are turned off (you can turn them back on and get reptilian leg bones instead of bird bones) if they were separately created. That chickens have reptilian genes in them tells us they share genetic material with reptiles - they have a phylogeny that stretches back to a shared ancestor in the remote past with reptiles.
So we observe all these lines of evidence that demonstrate species must be related to those in the past and each other. Not a single shred of evidence suggests that species were separately created.
I understand all this. I do. My big problem with all this "knowledge" is that some day it'll probably be refuted by someone smarter than whoever figured this out.

100 years ago, science "knew" that insects grew from rotting food. They could prove it....

There's a lot of things that science claims to prove that inevitably get unproved...

I don't buy it. Evolutionary theorists start with "man & ape have the same shoulder joints". They then "conclude" that man & ape are related & then assume that we had a common ancestry. THEN, they search for evidence.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#128465 Oct 8, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
omg! Get some health insurance - you don't want to go bankrupt!
It's not disputable. It's fact - just pick up any statistics on lifespan in different nations. Here, from the CIA:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-...
US is ranked 50th. 7 of the G8 nations are before it. Oh...woops, that makes the US dead last in the G8. It doesn't fair well in the G20, either...
Having national health care is not the gov't telling you how to take care of yourself, but the public protecting itself from corporations from profiteering of illness. Everyone gets old and sick - companies can only make money on health care by cutting corners, ripping customers off and overselling products.
Not the way Obamacare is spelled out. It's just another way for the gubment to take more & more taxes. It won't benefit Americans at all, just the American gubment.

Besides, I don't want a nanny-state. The government has no right to tell me if I need insurance or where I should get it from.

I'm NOT getting health insurance. As I said, it's a rip off! What I used to pay in insurance I now deposit into savings. I'm good.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#128467 Oct 8, 2012
I see the senile creationist is at it again. Do you think his family lets him go out in public?
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a superficial knowledge and understanding of the Hypatia incident and other things.
Simple and inescapable fact. This "modern secularism" got here directly through the Christian religion preserving, and encouraging the study of ancient texts that would have been buried after the fall of Rome.
Man had thousands of years and many cultures and civilizations where he could have advanced, but he didn't. It took that one. Your random evolution finding the right environment.
You are a fanatic.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#128468 Oct 8, 2012
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. it's funny how Christians now embrace Jews after thousands of years of persecution ..
.. why is that ??..
I always considered the Jews a part of my heritage. Most US males are circumcised. A practice started by the Jews and widely practiced in the United States.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#128469 Oct 8, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
How long will it be before the US becomes a basket case and the laughing stock of the world.
Our nation was the first to fly aircraft and the only nation in the world to send men to the moon. I could spend all day talking about our innovations as a nation.

We will never be a “basket case.”

We send more aid to poor countries every year then all the other nations combined. We are generous and the most advanced Super Power in the entire world. Had we not intervened during WW II. Your stupid ass would be speaking Japanese right now.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#128470 Oct 8, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I always considered the Jews a part of my heritage. Most US males are circumcised. A practice started by the Jews and widely practiced in the United States.
"It had no face, no personality. It was like a martian."

-Elaine Benes on the uncircumsised. LOL

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#128471 Oct 8, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
Tomorrow, Columbus Day is observed in some places in the U.S. In California, public offices are closed.
So here's the question: Should Columbus Day be recognized? Were he and his explorers good people who should be celebrated today? Were there good or bad consequences from their discovery/colonization?
I guess you won't be in traffic court after all.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#128472 Oct 8, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is the theoretical framework for the discipline of biology.
Yes !!!

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#128473 Oct 8, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
The law has nothing to do with it.
Freedom of speech exists, yes, but one must excercise it with discretion.
Think of the blade falling the other way - how many Muslims burnt the American flag after 9/11? It is a statment they made, and they are free to make it.
Just because they MAY make it, does not mean that they SHOULD. I find the film as disgusting as I found the flag burning after 9/11.
People must excercise common sense. If I am white, going to the black part of town and burning a Malcolm X/ Nelson Mandela poster will probably get me beaten up.
Yes, the boy in question has a RIGHT to air his views, even if it is supremacist BS. But we have to accept that our views may incite anger and in some cases, rage.
Just because there is no law against flicking boogers in a restaurant, is no reason to start doing so.
I tip my hat to you Dear Sir. You are a scholar and a gentleman.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128474 Oct 8, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you won't be in traffic court after all.
No.

Not today, and hopefully not at all.

I am respectful of the traffic laws.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#128475 Oct 8, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Not today, and hopefully not at all.
I am respectful of the traffic laws.
I was talking about your job as a defender in traffic court.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#128476 Oct 8, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking about your job as a defender in traffic court.
Oh!!
I have no such job.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#128477 Oct 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What, that the bishop of Alexandria at the time lead a mob that attacked and killed Hypatia because she had the nerve to be a woman doing scholarship at a pagan temple that dualed as a library?
<quoted text>
The encouraging of the study of ancient texts didn't happen until the renaisance. Until that time, the priests were quite happy to scrape off earlier writings on parchment to replace them by their own records. Fortunately, they occasionally did a poor job and we can recover the originals (like the Archimedes palimpset).
<quoted text>
And this is at least a good point. I would suggest the book by Toby Huff comparing Medieval Europe and the Islamic world at the time. There were certainly institutions in Europe that encouraged the scientific revolution and the church at least occasionally supported those institutions, although always timidly and often retracting its support. Ultimately, it was looking for support of its own dogma and anything that went against that dogma was heretical and would lead to ex-communication. Even Aquinas was ex-communicated. Many of the brave men that lead to the development of logic were priests, but they were also often rejected by the church at the time.
<quoted text>
I am thinking the same about you. You clearly misinterpret history to your liking a lot.
Your views of history, and other facets of life, are very simplified. Just like one would expect of someone that read books without understanding the complexities of the time, and blindly accepts the spin the author of the book puts on the accounts. Human relations were every bit as complex then as now. Your training turns those people into things, not people.

Do a wiki on Hypatia and you will see it was more complex than what you stated. BTW, I believe it was Julius Caesar that burned the library first, the big one. Accidentally.

You are judging without sufficient information and with insufficient judgmental abilities.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#128478 Oct 8, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're an apologist for the Catholic Church.
What next, the Inquisition was like a fraternity prank?
That from a guy that puts all theists on trial and condemns them and their morality according to his. You paint theists as animals, uneducated and dumb. What next if you had the power? Kill them?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#128479 Oct 8, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Not if it violates the Constitution.
<quoted text>
Which doesn't change the fact that it still overrules majority rule.
<quoted text>
Nope, they are appointed by Presidents and confirmed by the Senate, who *are* democratically elected.
<quoted text>
Nope. Just as I don't worship Presidents and Senators and Representatives and Governors and County Councils, but I still respect their authority.
Their authority runs your life.

You have 6 Catholics and 3 Jews on the Supreme Court. No atheists. For life. What if they interpret things a way you don't like regarding religion?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#128481 Oct 8, 2012
Nope. Just as I don't worship Presidents and Senators and Representatives and Governors and County Councils, but I still respect their authority.
Dave Nelson wrote:
Their authority runs your life.
Which doesn't require me to "worship" them.
Dave Nelson wrote:
You have 6 Catholics and 3 Jews on the Supreme Court. No atheists.
And no Protestants, no Mormons, no Muslims, no Buddhists, and no Hindus. So what? It's not possible for a 9-member body to be representative of every possible religious belief (or of those who lack theistic belief).
Dave Nelson wrote:
What if they interpret things a way you don't like regarding religion?
Then we wait until the makeup of the USSC changes and then bring another case that could overturn the previous ruling. Just as Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

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
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 min Epiphany2 611,945
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Buck Crick 830,410
Rajkot gay Topix 14 min raj 43
I wish God would get rid of all homosexuals in ... 22 min UidiotRaceMAkeWor... 8
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 55 min Robert F 585,791
Why God made males UGLY but females PRETTY ? 2 hr Rosa_Winkel 10
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 2 hr dollarsbill 3,959
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 5 hr Paul Porter1 99,270
More from around the web