Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247810 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: Apr 12

Location hidden

#157812 Mar 2, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>Please, I've been on here long enough to be sensitized and reactive to the stupidity of Topix atheists. You scared me. Thought one of them might have turned you.:-)
LOL

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#157813 Mar 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Rocks falling out the sky is gravity, rocks rolling around in your head is reality.
And you're the one that thinks they're bat man.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157814 Mar 2, 2013
What you say I true I do however think ridicule and humor is a great weapon to shine a light exposing the darkness of superstition.
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> Buck is a bore, and I do not understand why smart people do not ignore him and have intelligent discussions with each other instead. That is why I rarely visit and attempt to communicate with someone who has written something somewhat interesting and provocative, and have my doubts whether people prefer such discussions, rather than arguing with the idiots. Sorry to be so blunt. If you enjoy it, no problem with argument, but I do not get the value of it, compared with discussion with another intelligent person with whom one has nuanced quibbles, or with whom one can discuss multiple dimensions of interesting questions. For example, I think we missed a great opportunity as a species when the asteroid went by so close. It should have been located much sooner and visited as it departed, with adequate technological means to explore its size, shape, make-up, etc, and get some ideas for what could be done to nudge a future approaching asteroid off course if it were coming dangerously close to earth. In short, humans should tentatively play God with the future of earth, in order to save it - rather than to allow idiots to do continuing harm.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157815 Mar 2, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got it backwards. Darwinian evolution predicts abiogenesis. It doesn't rely on it - though, only abiogenesis makes sense from the perspective of our contemporary sciences.
Who cares if Darwin say so? He is 160 years out of date now. He said quite a few things that are no longer considered correct. Only his basic premise still holds. His genius lay in revealing evolution, not in working out the details we have at our hands now.
Your last point is meaningless. It doesn't add weight to any argument you might put forth except "we don't know how life started, but we have some good hypotheses we're testing."
No, I had it correct.

Current evolutionary theory relies inextricably on abiogenesis.

You admitted so yourself - you just didn't know it, when you said, "only abiogenesis makes sense from the perspective of our contemporary sciences"

You could have just as correctly worded your statement "ONLY ABIOGENESIS makes sense with our contemporary evolution theory".

So then, what if abiogenesis does not make sense, i.e., is not true? What happens to the paradigm without it?

The Darwinian paradigm collapses and must be reconstructed because ANY ALTERNATIVE TO ABIOGENESIS REQUIRES EXTERNAL AGENCY.

Thus and then, it can no longer be assumed that random variation and natural selection is the sole mechanism of biologic diversity.

Also, out goes the assumption of universal common descent. Out goes the assumption, even, that life evolved through orderly sequence, instead of multiple life forms arising at different times. Out goes the assumption that multicellular organisms arose from unicellular organisms. Out goes the assumption that life arose in its most simple form and progressed ALWAYS to more complex.

Abiogenesis is inextricably linked with the large-scale views of evolutionary theory.

It was so in Darwin's day; it is so now. Darwin was greatly distressed by this, and so began the tricky campaign in science for bifurcating the two concepts.

It works very well, at least among the non-skeptical.

“Input”

Since: Dec 10

Input

#157816 Mar 2, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're the one that thinks they're bat man.
Then why isn't my name bat man? Clearly thinking isn't your
forte. What is absolutely amazing is how the most indoctrinated and venomously religitarded on the entire topix site, congratulate each
other on their cleverness. But cannot manage to admit anything but a constant denial of any achievement of modern science.
Thinking the whole time their inability to grasp and describe theory
explaining function is because it's false, and their only recourse is a magical skydaddy who is beyond all reasoning ability is why all humans cannot understand.

But the truth is that they like so many fundies reject science, because they are lacking the ability to understand it.
To admit their own shortcoming is blaspheme and rely on the god card to pull them out of the pool of crocodiles.
In reality they like you int the real world will academically be torn limb from limb and shredded to pieces, if they have to present anything credible.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157817 Mar 2, 2013
My statement to Dave is based on his own musings about what happens after you die and how because I am young I am not able to comprehend his viewpoint on the desire for an afterlife. Fear of what happens after death is a common thread with believers don't you agree?

I could die in a car crash tonight but death does not scare me anymore than falling asleep does.
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> Here you are arguing with Dave Nelson, and I have forgotten most of the names of the ones I think are not worth discussing things with. At least BC is memorable, however awful! You I remember as mostly sensible, but maybe a bit too sure in the way you state things - I doubt if you are such a authoritarian personality as to insist that you know. You are venturing good guesses about people's psychology - fear of death or of dying - and making reasonable suggestions for how to live more happily now. I think you are likely correct in many cases, but not absolutely correct in all cases. Still you are closer to rational than most - either "hard" believers or "hard" atheists who claim to know one thing or the other. I consider myself to be an agnostic (not making a knowledge claim) atheist (not believing in a God such as it is usually defined - and my own definition is definately not the usual one, nor do I connect with it in any way as a believer in it - it is more of an attempt at definition that is useful to trump all other definitions that I think are ridiculous). Good luck with your arguments if you enjoy them. If you ever want a converstion with me, I do not have my own computer, and only have time on Sat AM late after Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris Perry on MSNBC. From 11 to 1 central time. That is my way of both giving up on topix and yet not giving up on some persons I think are worthwhile conversing with, such as you.

“In the beginning God Created..”

Since: Feb 12

Southern Illinois

#157818 Mar 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy shitballs.
Did Koder just admit to an err?!?
There's hope...
Atheist don't make mistakes but mistakes make Atheist.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157819 Mar 2, 2013
Exactly which is why science always seeks to progress and improve. Few events brings a scientist more joy than being shown observable data that improves upon or eclipses what they had previously found.

Every day thousands of scientists all over the world dive into previous aspects of theories testing and retesting them literally millions of times hoping for a new discovery.
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> That was to Clementia. I can see a difference in trying to correct people who make false accusations - such as that scientists are afraid to say they don't know - because they do not know any better, and those who make false accusations because they are outright liars. I suspect many who make false statements because they do not know any better are resistant to learning that they are mistaken, and won't reform after they are corrected, however! But your answer was interesting. You might also note that there are differences among the sciences and between physical sciences and socalled social sciences, and among scientists themselves, as to how authoritative and arbitrary they should when they think they have discovered the answer to something - or THE ANSWER if they are too sure and too proud of themselves.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157820 Mar 2, 2013
Am intelligent person.....
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Am intelligent person would have chosen the word "others" instead.
Just sayin...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157821 Mar 2, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> Buck is a bore, and I do not understand why smart people do not ignore him and have intelligent discussions with each other instead. That is why I rarely visit and attempt to communicate with someone who has written something somewhat interesting and provocative, and have my doubts whether people prefer such discussions, rather than arguing with the idiots. Sorry to be so blunt. If you enjoy it, no problem with argument, but I do not get the value of it, compared with discussion with another intelligent person with whom one has nuanced quibbles, or with whom one can discuss multiple dimensions of interesting questions. For example, I think we missed a great opportunity as a species when the asteroid went by so close. It should have been located much sooner and visited as it departed, with adequate technological means to explore its size, shape, make-up, etc, and get some ideas for what could be done to nudge a future approaching asteroid off course if it were coming dangerously close to earth. In short, humans should tentatively play God with the future of earth, in order to save it - rather than to allow idiots to do continuing harm.
If I notice a "smart person" on here, compared to myself, I'll give them your message.

You effing moron.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157822 Mar 2, 2013
Yet you constantly speak of it's best to believe because of what happens after you die. Your hallucination and delusion comfort you.

My knowledge of death in what way? Decomposing of the body? How brain function ceases? Autopsy?

Are you trying to claim your near death hallucination gives your some special insight to what happens after we die?

Grow up Dave.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
I am almost 20 years past my first death. Went through the process. Hardly afraid of it.
Now, tell us your experience in the matter. Impart your knowledge to everyone.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157823 Mar 2, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
A scientific theory has been tested repeatedly and is correct for all observed results.
Sometimes. Sometimes not.

It depends on what mood they are in, or who is speaking.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157824 Mar 2, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> Here you are arguing with Dave Nelson, and I have forgotten most of the names of the ones I think are not worth discussing things with. At least BC is memorable, however awful! You I remember as mostly sensible, but maybe a bit too sure in the way you state things - I doubt if you are such a authoritarian personality as to insist that you know. You are venturing good guesses about people's psychology - fear of death or of dying - and making reasonable suggestions for how to live more happily now. I think you are likely correct in many cases, but not absolutely correct in all cases. Still you are closer to rational than most - either "hard" believers or "hard" atheists who claim to know one thing or the other. I consider myself to be an agnostic (not making a knowledge claim) atheist (not believing in a God such as it is usually defined - and my own definition is definately not the usual one, nor do I connect with it in any way as a believer in it - it is more of an attempt at definition that is useful to trump all other definitions that I think are ridiculous). Good luck with your arguments if you enjoy them. If you ever want a converstion with me, I do not have my own computer, and only have time on Sat AM late after Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris Perry on MSNBC. From 11 to 1 central time. That is my way of both giving up on topix and yet not giving up on some persons I think are worthwhile conversing with, such as you.
I didn't take time to read your babble. I'll get back to it later.

I promise. I'll come back and read it.

Please don't think I'm skipping the crap.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157825 Mar 2, 2013
Unable to refute what I said? Check.

And Dave, unlike your delusions and hallucinations my dream has already been realized an is observable in realty. Future generations will eclipse our knowledge in natural processes and their future generations will know even more.

Your superstitious ilk desperately clinging to a comforting myth will chuckled as many do now about ancient people who thought some god dragged the sun across the sky as the day went on. Call me Nostradamus-like because that will happen.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
yawn
Lovely.
But you will go pfffssttt before those dreams are realized.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157826 Mar 2, 2013
Dave and Buck's pillow talk :)
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee, thanks, Buck.
I would be even smarter if I had more info.
I am really amazed at the consistent low quality of reasoning ability of these Topix atheists. I mean it is below average.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#157827 Mar 2, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yet you constantly speak of it's best to believe because of what happens after you die. Your hallucination and delusion comfort you.
My knowledge of death in what way? Decomposing of the body? How brain function ceases? Autopsy?
Are you trying to claim your near death hallucination gives your some special insight to what happens after we die?
Grow up Dave.
<quoted text>
Perfect illustration of the arrogance of "knowing it all".

You know nothing of the science involved in the experience, and nothing about the individual experience of it, yet you know more, allegedly, than the person experiencing it.

You are an idiot. If your brain was transplanted into a grasshopper, it would shit and hop backwards in its shit.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#157828 Mar 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Then why isn't my name bat man? Clearly thinking isn't your
forte. What is absolutely amazing is how the most indoctrinated and venomously religitarded on the entire topix site, congratulate each
other on their cleverness. But cannot manage to admit anything but a constant denial of any achievement of modern science.
Thinking the whole time their inability to grasp and describe theory
explaining function is because it's false, and their only recourse is a magical skydaddy who is beyond all reasoning ability is why all humans cannot understand.

But the truth is that they like so many fundies reject science, because they are lacking the ability to understand it.
To admit their own shortcoming is blaspheme and rely on the god card to pull them out of the pool of crocodiles.
In reality they like you int the real world will academically be torn limb from limb and shredded to pieces, if they have to present anything credible.
Already in use.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#157829 Mar 2, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>A scientific theory has been tested repeatedly and is correct for all observed results.
"Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.

From Nova:

"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.

The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywhere.

BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...

There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.

So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?

Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense."

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#157830 Mar 2, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes. Sometimes not.
It depends on what mood they are in, or who is speaking.
umm Intelligent Design isn't science

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#157831 Mar 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
First, he never said organisms were "created" at all, and he certainly didn't state that evolution answers the beginning of life. Also he has not actually said that there is no god, just that the christian god cannot exist, and I concur with him on that. I don't much like some of his personality traits, but you must be honest when speaking about someone anyone can watch and read on.
You mean this James Watson? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson
You will have to be more specific, as in actual references where he said those things, because the way you post it makes you look dishonest. This, combined with your complete misrepresentation of Dawkins, actually makes your entire argument questionable.
Now, you have a bit to learn about scientific theories, they are not some wild guess answer, they are not just "this is how I see it" assertions, they are not assertions at all, actually. They are, in fact, an explanation of how pieces of information fit together. A theory is only accepted after a lot of testing, verification, and evidence is collected. So no, there is no alternate theory to the theory of evolution just as there is no alternate theory to relativity or chemical theory.
I know what i'm talking about, both James watson and Dawkins said those things!

HE DID SAY IT! He said evolution proves there is no creator!! Dawkins said that he would not even consider a scientific god.

I have nothing against Dawkins, i like him, but sometimes i don't like his attitude!

I see what u mean tho, i'll find the quotes for u!

I know what theories are, i never said that. I said scientists r picking and choosing which parts of evidence to take into consideration.

That's where u r wrong. Physicists are clearly ignoring consciousness and it's affect on matter. We have evidence that consciousness affects atoms, but they just ignore it, coz they want to.

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
The Christian Atheist debate 2 min emperorjohn 4,213
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Hukt on Fonix 881,995
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 38 min Robert F 603,863
Habesha 1 hr Insta names 1
News The Latest: Husband: Kentucky clerk is 'standin... 1 hr GOD loves GAYS mo... 68
Has anyone ever heard of the Coudenhoven-Kalerg... 1 hr One Planet One Pe... 11
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 1 hr The swamiji 7,718
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 3 hr dollarsbill 8,459
More from around the web