Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.
Comments
151,801 - 151,820 of 226,379 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
christianity is EVIL

Halifax, Canada

#157916 Mar 2, 2013
oldman75 wrote:
Atheism requires as much faith as organized religion. I am neither smart enough,or opininated enough to discern the existance or non existance of a supreme diety. IMHO if there is one I doubt his anthropormhic attributes -perhaps universal thought might be piossible .I am,and will always be an agnostic because I do not know and neither does any other human being .
once you define this diety youll realize its logicaly Impossible to exist

www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

Anyways what difference does it make if one is atheist or agnostic?

I dont worship any god so that makes me atheist...can some god exist?

www.godchecker.com . whatcha think

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#157917 Mar 2, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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".
I'm not sure why you're not understanding this - abiogenesis is the necessary prediction of our sciences, including but not limited to evolutionary theory.

(I wrote the word "necessary" on purpose, so that you could nitpick it)

However, abiogenesis doesn't form the basis for any of our sciences, for multiple reasons:

1. It's not been demonstrated
2. The processes, if any, are not fully understood.

That's simply not enough to form a foundation for contemporary theories of science. Hence, our theories predict abiogenesis and not the other way around.
So then, what if abiogenesis does not make sense, i.e., is not true? What happens to the paradigm without it?
We'd have to rethink our sciences to include how abiogenesis is not true. If it turns out there's some kind of divinity/non-material agent involved, every framework theory would need to be fully remade.
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.
You mean "unpredictable variation," but "random" will suffice for shorthand.
Also, out goes the assumption of universal common descent.
Not necessarily - it would depend on how the external agent designed life. Perhaps it chose "random" variation and evolution to do its creating.
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.
I don't think you could give up any assumption w/out knowing what the designer wanted, how the designer designed. Unless you have some insight into "it," we really wouldn't be able to make any claim - any claim. We would have great difficulties narrowing down causes for any phenomena.
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.
Sorry, you haven't convinced me. How does evolution require abiogenesis?

It's quite clear how it predicts it - no creators involved in any of our sciences.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#157918 Mar 2, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
once you define this diety youll realize its logicaly Impossible to exist
www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm
Anyways what difference does it make if one is atheist or agnostic?
I dont worship any god so that makes me atheist...can some god exist?
www.godchecker.com . whatcha think
I always thought n atheist says there is no god. That is just as presumptuious as jesus,allah,buddh,the flying spaghetti monster is god . Ain't no proof for any >

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#157919 Mar 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
1. There is a Theory of Gravity and a Law of Gravity, there are very different.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:
"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."
That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you drop, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.
That law only tells us what happens, but not why it happens, THAT'S the Theory of Gravity.
Laws don't change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered.
http://thehappyscientist.com/s cience-experiment/gravity-theo ry-or-law

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#157920 Mar 2, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok...so what is the Higgs-boson particle? That, uh, was my original question.
It's another mathematical construct, a virtual reality, to explain the math model based upon misinterpretation of the forces arising from use of EM devices to measure, which introduces a polarity and charge issue they are totally ignoring, and which gives them a cheesy model they just keep patching and going in circles on. Some Christian guy named Faraday stated the ball rolling on those EM devices. Actually they would do better just from scratch math. The approach of how something can work and then testing, versus observing and assuming, and then testing designed to confirm the assuming, and add patches when it don't work.

A school girl with a large caliber revolver between her legs? I am glad to see it is pointed away from her.

Since matter is actually created from th eoutside in and not inside out as commonly thought, how would that change the theory of evolution?

Kinda missed you.

Smooch.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#157921 Mar 2, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It's another mathematical construct, a virtual reality, to explain the math model based upon misinterpretation of the forces arising from use of EM devices to measure, which introduces a polarity and charge issue they are totally ignoring, and which gives them a cheesy model they just keep patching and going in circles on. Some Christian guy named Faraday stated the ball rolling on those EM devices. Actually they would do better just from scratch math. The approach of how something can work and then testing, versus observing and assuming, and then testing designed to confirm the assuming, and add patches when it don't work.
A school girl with a large caliber revolver between her legs? I am glad to see it is pointed away from her.
Since matter is actually created from th eoutside in and not inside out as commonly thought, how would that change the theory of evolution?
Kinda missed you.
Smooch.
You do understand it is a physical thing?
I mean that they aren't something that can't be physically seen?

http://www.science.tamu.edu/articles/911

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#157922 Mar 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You do understand it is a physical thing?
I mean that they aren't something that can't be physically seen?
http://www.science.tamu.edu/articles/911
It's a "physical" event, but not a physical thing. Same with all the other "particles". They can't see them, either.

It is way more massive than a proton or neutron. Should have been a lot easier to find if it existed.

Particles are swirls of "energy" flow. Observing apparatus uses swirling "energy" flows to observe. To detect there has to be something to "bounce" off of, or means to measure the effect of the observing apparatus' applied energy has on something else as it gets channeled through the maze. Such as if the swirl falls into line with a swirl in the observed. That increase has to affect something else that can then be read. They do something like that with their deductions determining the other particles, and the Higgs's itself. The splattering technique.

They are missing the swirl patterns. Actually they are observing the effects, but because they can't see the patterns, they call it a particle. That is where you get the quarks and all these other things. It is really just flows bumping around each other and in loops.

There ain't a damned solid particle to be had. That is why they have these charge fields and sophistric bullshit.

I explained the basic process last night.

Flows create polarities because of direction of motion and direction of spin. Motion of space is the only real "force". Particles are just markers of where they collide and combine.

They worship idols.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#157923 Mar 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You do understand it is a physical thing?
I mean that they aren't something that can't be physically seen?
http://www.science.tamu.edu/articles/911
BTW, from that article you posted.

""This will give us room for excitement for the next 10 to 15 years, trying to measure and understand the properties of the model we seem to be seeing. We'll need to have beams with a much higher intensity so we can collect much more data in a shorter period of time.""

English translation. We get a paycheck for the next 10-15 years while we work up the next particle for the next paycheck period.

I love the seem to be seeing. And the bigger and newer machine.

Particle physics is so exciting, and profitable.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#157924 Mar 2, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You do understand it is a physical thing?
I mean that they aren't something that can't be physically seen?
http://www.science.tamu.edu/articles/911
You must understand Dave Nelson does not understand .... anything.

Most people would say:-
"I do not understand ....."
then go away and learn about it.

Dave Nelson on the other hand says:-

"I do not understand ....."
then attempts to teach everybody about it.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#157925 Mar 2, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
.....
Particle physics is so exciting, and profitable.
Yes it is ever heard of Nuclear Power, Nuclear Medicine, Xrays?

Fundamental research always pays off.

If it were up to you fire would never had been invented. I can just see it now:-

"Stop wasting your time rubbing those sticks together."

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157926 Mar 2, 2013
So believe in your god or burn in Hell? Well we can once and for all discard the notion that you are a deist.

I am sorry you live in this make believe world of delusion.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
He will be lucky to feel anything but emotional agony.
Getting roasted gives you something to do. Wishing you could exist as something, and can't, is a lot worse.
The boy is nothing but failed product.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157927 Mar 2, 2013
Shhhhh lardass you are humiliating yourself again.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_death_exp...

Next would you like to hear what green leafy vegetables and a treadmill could do for you?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No. There is no such thing as NDE hallucination, GiveMeLiverwurst.
If you are speaking of NDEs themselves, I already know more of the science involved than you will ever read about.
That's assuming you can read.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157928 Mar 2, 2013
The body itself brings on the hallucination.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Mine wasn't in a hospital. No drugs, either.
But it is as personal an experience as you can get. All by yourself.
Yours will be different.

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Nothing creates... Nothing

#157929 Mar 2, 2013
Atheism doesn't require as much faith as religion, it has nothing people of other religions respect.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157930 Mar 2, 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/...

Ebon Alexander is a lifelong Christian who saw exactly as you would assume a man of his faith would.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
NDEs are remarkably consistent across cultures and religious beliefs. Statistically, most such experiences DO NOT match the subject's religious experiences in life.
According to scientists who study these, your observations are wrong, Liverwurst.
They are particularly telling when they occur to atheists.
Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander, for example.
He kinda agreed with you till he had one. Now he agrees with me.
Find a subject you know a little something about. Take your time.
Albtraum

Jackson, MO

#157931 Mar 2, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
Atheism doesn't require as much faith as religion, it has nothing people of other religions respect.
Sorry, your fundamental flaw is that atheism isn't another religion. It is a lack of belief, you don't need faith to lack belief of something of which there is no proof.....got it?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

#157932 Mar 2, 2013
Televangelists and every other huckster shilling sole feel good nonsense. Wanna write a horsesht book on NDEs? Lol!
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
I find them oddly entertaining.
It's like advanced kindergarten for adults with severe mental illness. These are the fodder the televangelists drool over.
"Believe nothing,
No matter where you read it,
Or who has said it,
Not even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own reason
And your own common sense."
~Buddha

“Kalamazoo, MI ”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#157933 Mar 3, 2013
mtimber wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the man that states a gust of wind blew on a handful of dirt and man magically appeared.
How would you define him?
Whose hand was the dirt in?

“Kalamazoo, MI ”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#157934 Mar 3, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
It's another mathematical construct, a virtual reality, to explain the math model based upon misinterpretation of the forces arising from use of EM devices to measure, which introduces a polarity and charge issue they are totally ignoring, and which gives them a cheesy model they just keep patching and going in circles on. Some Christian guy named Faraday stated the ball rolling on those EM devices. Actually they would do better just from scratch math. The approach of how something can work and then testing, versus observing and assuming, and then testing designed to confirm the assuming, and add patches when it don't work.
A school girl with a large caliber revolver between her legs? I am glad to see it is pointed away from her.
Since matter is actually created from th eoutside in and not inside out as commonly thought, how would that change the theory of evolution?
Kinda missed you.
Smooch.
You're hard to follow after you've been drinking. ;)

“Kalamazoo, MI ”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#157935 Mar 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
1. There is a Theory of Gravity and a Law of Gravity, there are very different.
There - They're ;) Other than that, you are so smart!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min Robert F 539,097
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 6 min Ratloder 117,997
Last Word + 2 6 min Doug77 534
Alicia Yarbrough Bippus! (Apr '12) 8 min the facts 3
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 9 min Al Capone 4,340
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min Freebird USA 733,171
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 31 min WasteWater 94,685
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 32 min WasteWater 258,054
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 34 min Seraphima 599,985
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••