Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256135 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

#186769 Nov 23, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I took your advice yesterday. Not exactly, but pretty close. I'd have a few beers then a glass of water. Did that several times. And I did have a full glass of water before bed. And sure as shit, I got up twice last night to pee. But I feel good this morning, bright & peppy.
Thanks.
My pleasure.

If the advice benefits you, it will be in the form of some combination of fewer, briefer, and/or milder attacks. If in the past, you've only had two or three attacks separated by years, it may be hard to judge if the advice has helped you until several event free years pass, and even then, who can say just what other factors may have been working for you, like a change in your diet or metabolism.

But I'm sure that you won't care much exactly what worked if the problem disappears.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186770 Nov 23, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
And FYI - sometimes with me, the best way to get something locked in my brain is with analogy...
I'll keep that in mind.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186771 Nov 23, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
The physical environment of earth does not include time. Conditions are not and have never been hospitable to life forming spontaneously. This is not faith-based; it is a known fact.
This is another unsupported claim, and is obviously incorrect since it contradicts the position of the scientific community, which is busy trying to discover how this happened or may have happened. They don't know your "fact."

Furthermore, whatever private or public sources are funding the research into the matter also don't seem to know your "fact."
Buck Crick wrote:
All life "derived from a single primordial unicellular species", on the other hand, IS faith-based.
That is also incorrect.

There is both biological and mathematical evidence to support that hypothesis. All of the quoted material below comes from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/... , the lede of which is, "All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm. The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago."

The biolomolecular evidence is this: The three great domains of life - "bacteria, bacteria-like microbes called Archaea, and eukaryotes, the group that includes plants and other multicellular species, such as humans" - "share 23 universal proteins" that "perform fundamental cellular activities, such as DNA replication and the translation of DNA into proteins."

The mathematical evidence is this: Statistical analysis demonstrated that "it's highly unlikely that the protein groups would have independently evolved into such similar DNA sequences." That is because "the best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes" The odds of that happening by chance are "astronomically enormous" [1x10^2680]

You needn't bother to tell me that you reject this out of hand. I know you do. But this is evidence nevertheless, and its presence justifies the tentative belief that this idea is correct to people that base their beliefs on evidence.
Buck Crick wrote:
I have no objection to diversity of faiths.
"When it comes to religion, we’re not two sides of the same coin and you don’t get to put your un-reason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus, Thor and The Kraken - with the stuff that is not evidence-based " - Bill Maher

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186772 Nov 23, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Dave.
Why don't you say that again like you think it's compelling so I know you're not just kidding.
<quoted text>
Huh?
Oh yeah, I forgot who I was talking to. You loves you some word salad.
<quoted text>
Since we cannot know everything, a lot of what science does is find out what might be true, and what isn't.
<quoted text>
What does that have to do with what scientists are actually doing?
The people working on the abiogenesis front are not trying to create life. They are trying to produce conditions that will allow life to arise. The only design comes from the variables they decide to test, and most of that comes from research and best guesses about earlier Earth conditions.
"What does that have to do with what scientists are actually doing?
The people working on the abiogenesis front are not trying to create life. They are trying to produce conditions that will allow life to arise. The only design comes from the variables they decide to test, and most of that comes from research and best guesses about earlier Earth conditions."

Oh, I get it now. They set the ingredients for the cake on the table in a sterile room and just watch to see if it mixes and cooks itself.

Nothing like observing nature to see how it works, right?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186773 Nov 23, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.animatedscience.co. uk/ks5_physics/general/Electri city%20&%20Magnetism/Magne tic%20Fields.htm
Pretty good little introduction to how magnetic fields interact. You just have to remember this works down to the atomic level. There is not a monolithic field, it is a combo of the individual atoms working on each other. Those individual atoms get worked on by the cumulative field of others. Note the chain of paperclips caught in a field and their relative values. This is the stuff you use to make things work. This bipolarity and relative values of it. There is an interesting phenomenon though in all "magnetized", note that word, objects. That magnetically neutral portion between the poles. If you have two charged poles and a "neutral" in between, then you are tapping into another force to fill the disturbance of its equilibrium. Has to do with conservation of energy, etc.
This is high school physics, Dave, and there is no evidence in your post that you read or understood it, although you apparently did look at the sketch of the paper clips. But there is no part of that link in your comment, and no part of your comment in that link or anywhere else to my knowledge.

This underscores just how disconnected your evidence free, faith based musings are from evidence based science. The material in the link can be used to build devices that make life better, which is the indisputable evidence of its validity and value. By contrast, your musings are sterile. There is virtually no chance that any of your ideas could ever be used for more than filler in a Topix post. Furhtermore, if one of your ideas was correct, it would be an accident, a surprise, and there would be no way to picking out from the others - like a book containing thousands of combinations of recommended lottery ticket numbers.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186774 Nov 23, 2013
boooots wrote:
I have not see the rest of this conversation,
What I provided was the whole conversation about Barbados.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186775 Nov 23, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
My good friend there’s a playground in heaven unlike anything here on this earth. There’s no more dying or pain and suffering.
This sounds like rainbow bridge. From http://www.petloss.com/rainbowbridge.htm

"Just this side of heaven is a place called Rainbow Bridge. When an animal dies that has been especially close to someone here, that pet goes to Rainbow Bridge. There are meadows and hills for all of our special friends so they can run and play together. There is plenty of food, water and sunshine, and our friends are warm and comfortable.

"All the animals who had been ill and old are restored to health and vigor; those who were hurt or maimed are made whole and strong again, just as we remember them in our dreams of days and times gone by.
The animals are happy and content, except for one small thing; they each miss someone very special to them, who had to be left behind.

"They all run and play together, but the day comes when one suddenly stops and looks into the distance. His bright eyes are intent; His eager body quivers. Suddenly he begins to run from the group, flying over the green grass, his legs carrying him faster and faster.

"You have been spotted, and when you and your special friend finally meet, you cling together in joyous reunion, never to be parted again. The happy kisses rain upon your face; your hands again caress the beloved head, and you look once more into the trusting eyes of your pet, so long gone from your life but never absent from your heart.

"Then you cross Rainbow Bridge together."

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186776 Nov 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
This is high school physics, Dave, and there is no evidence in your post that you read or understood it, although you apparently did look at the sketch of the paper clips. But there is no part of that link in your comment, and no part of your comment in that link or anywhere else to my knowledge.
This underscores just how disconnected your evidence free, faith based musings are from evidence based science. The material in the link can be used to build devices that make life better, which is the indisputable evidence of its validity and value. By contrast, your musings are sterile. There is virtually no chance that any of your ideas could ever be used for more than filler in a Topix post. Furhtermore, if one of your ideas was correct, it would be an accident, a surprise, and there would be no way to picking out from the others - like a book containing thousands of combinations of recommended lottery ticket numbers.
That stuff works the same on the molecular level. Yours included. It's a process that allows animation, and even "thought". It is even a process that has been harnessed to allow your bloviating on here.

I've posted much more extensively on it in the past.

For a science guy you sure take the existence of things and how they came about for granted.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186778 Nov 23, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
As a matter of fact you will find religion was the initiator of science.
And polio was the initiator of the polio vaccine.

Why do we keep reading this or some variant of it?
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

Suppose this were a regular fact rather than a Dave-fact. Would it matter? Would it be a reason to preserve religion?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186779 Nov 23, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Fine. Step well back. I don't want Milo Loosedick's teeth to hit you in the face. Or his slobber, if he has no teeth.
From Bill Maher two weeks ago:

"New Rule: I don’t need to hear any more about this Oprah Winfrey scandal where her 79-year-old father is going through this messy divorce, and the reports that he maintained an affair with a prostitute named “One Tooth”— well, actually, you could tell me more about “One Tooth.” Because, I feel like if you were in the market for a prostitute, having one tooth would not be a selling point. You’d either want all teeth or no teeth. It’s kind of like those new ten-calorie sodas. Why not no calories?"

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186780 Nov 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
And polio was the initiator of the polio vaccine.
Why do we keep reading this or some variant of it?
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
Suppose this were a regular fact rather than a Dave-fact. Would it matter? Would it be a reason to preserve religion?
Science just deals with the material world and how it works. Religions got into how it came to being.

IANS, you are nothing more than a glorified cook and car mechanic in your perspectives. You mix chemicals to get something to happen and you deal with how parts are put together. The chemicals and parts are pre-existing.

You claim to know physics, but you seem to lack the ability to understand how it works. Which leads to the manufacture of your chemicals and parts.

I have been presenting how we are essentially very fancy holograms, or remote controlled airplanes doing some manifesting for something. You are under the illusion we are separate and independent operators in this universe.

I have a big question for you that will demonstrate your knowledge. This should be very simple for such an illustrious intellect for yourself.

Explain how the nuclear particles exclusively can initiate thought and action on their own in your body. This is a requirement to be an independent operator and thinker. Feel free to link to sources telling how it is done.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186781 Nov 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The evidence for abiogenesis is life. If it wasn't designed, it evolved spontaneously from nonlife, whether on earth or elsewhere and came to earth on an asteroid or come. The supernatural explanation has no support for it at all except the existence of life and no proof of abiogenesis yet. By virtue of being the only one of two hypotheses with any experimental support, abiogenesis is the leading hypothesis
Dave Nelson wrote:
LOL! The supernatural has thousands of years of belief. Along with analysis of the living experience. You have a few books and theories of the last few decades. A buncha could haves.
Is this part of some kind of an argument for or against something? Were you aware of the relative records of supernaturalism and rational skepticism regarding knowledge, which I define here as the ability to predict or control of nature in such a way as to make life better? What has the church given mankind in its millennia of existence compared to secular alternatives of the last few centuries?

Here's a poster, which though illegible, makes its point nonetheless:
http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/R-Scienc...
Dave Nelson wrote:
If science creates life from non-living matter it is design, not random chance that did it. Period. In bold letters.
Sorry.
Is that part of some argument? Are you arguing that if man can do something in a few weeks or months in a lab, that nature couldn't have done the same thing unaided?

The skeptic should note that although the faith based thinker has neither any use for evidence nor any respect for it, he demands it, yet can be expected to reject it if provided.

Dave is preemptively announcing what we already know: that providing a road map for steps from nonlife to life, even if it can be shown to be the one actually traversed by nature, will have no effect on the faith based thinker. The two answers we can expect are the one Dave is giving us now, and that nothing has been proven.

What do we have to offer these people if evidence and argument are not acceptable? And what value is an objection based on faith?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186782 Nov 23, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
So where did the designer come from?
I don't know.

But something which created the rules is not necessarily restricted by them.

Specifically, within the context of universe and space and time, which is the context we are discussing, something cannot come from nothing.

Outside and independent of that, we don't know.

So the infinite regression argument - "where did the designer/creator come from" - is not a valid argument.

A creator of time would be independent of time, or "eternal", and the discussion of its beginning is a fallacy.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186783 Nov 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Is this part of some kind of an argument for or against something? Were you aware of the relative records of supernaturalism and rational skepticism regarding knowledge, which I define here as the ability to predict or control of nature in such a way as to make life better? What has the church given mankind in its millennia of existence compared to secular alternatives of the last few centuries?
Here's a poster, which though illegible, makes its point nonetheless:
http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/R-Scienc...
<quoted text>
Is that part of some argument? Are you arguing that if man can do something in a few weeks or months in a lab, that nature couldn't have done the same thing unaided?
The skeptic should note that although the faith based thinker has neither any use for evidence nor any respect for it, he demands it, yet can be expected to reject it if provided.
Dave is preemptively announcing what we already know: that providing a road map for steps from nonlife to life, even if it can be shown to be the one actually traversed by nature, will have no effect on the faith based thinker. The two answers we can expect are the one Dave is giving us now, and that nothing has been proven.
What do we have to offer these people if evidence and argument are not acceptable? And what value is an objection based on faith?
You are pretty weak, IANS.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186784 Nov 23, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
At age 19 I had an Army GT of 136. That was the equivalent of a Wechsler 136. Either qualified for MENSA. I had an even higher percentile Navy IQ score years later.

I, too have not fared as well in this society as I could if just based on IQ
You're illustrating the difference between intellect and wisdom, the former being the ability to manipulate abstract concepts using symbols like words and numbers, the latter being the ability to solve the central problem in the game of life: how to obtain and maintain the highest possible level of satisfaction.
Dave Nelson wrote:
But the fact is I didn't need anyone to "tell" me most things. I could figure out things on the fly
You didn't figure out the main thing. Perhaps it is related to your belief that you didn't need help.

Did you ever find a cigarette? That's a good example of a bad choice that you have made and continue to make every day, even as you scramble through your ashtrays looking for butts between writing posts advising others what they should do.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#186785 Nov 23, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know.

But something which created the rules is not necessarily restricted by them.

Specifically, within the context of universe and space and time, which is the context we are discussing, something cannot come from nothing.

Outside and independent of that, we don't know.

So the infinite regression argument - "where did the designer/creator come from" - is not a valid argument.

A creator of time would be independent of time, or "eternal", and the discussion of its beginning is a fallacy.
That's a very convenient non explanation that only serves to confirm your need to believe.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186786 Nov 23, 2013
timn17 wrote:
There are plenty of american english words that are spelled with "extra letters."
I can't think of any, though I confess I haven't thought it through.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186787 Nov 23, 2013
&fe ature=youtube_gdata_player
Eagle 12 wrote:
Those could come in handy in clearing land mines.
Or making children laugh.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186788 Nov 23, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Thanks, Intensive Care Unit.
I_see_you wrote:
I'm blonde, so forgive me, but I don't get this response.
My apologies if you've been shown this already:

I_see_you
ICU
Intensive Care Unit.

[Buck yucks]

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#186789 Nov 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're illustrating the difference between intellect and wisdom, the former being the ability to manipulate abstract concepts using symbols like words and numbers, the latter being the ability to solve the central problem in the game of life: how to obtain and maintain the highest possible level of satisfaction.
<quoted text>
You didn't figure out the main thing. Perhaps it is related to your belief that you didn't need help.
Did you ever find a cigarette? That's a good example of a bad choice that you have made and continue to make every day, even as you scramble through your ashtrays looking for butts between writing posts advising others what they should do.
What makes you think I haven't found a higher level of satisfaction?

Understanding things has been more important to me than "having" things.

Not everyone is as shallow minded as you, IANS. My "main thing" is probably above your understanding.

Since we will both be put into the same dirt, my understanding may go a lot further than your material goods. Understanding can cut paths in the unknown. Your understanding is limited to that which will go poof.

I went and got another carton.

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 (Jun '15) 3 min Buck Crick 56,494
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 min Pegasus 281,489
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 15 min Catcher1 971,901
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 24 min bad bob 183,001
topix drops human sexuality forum.......this be... 35 min patsy the shared ... 42
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 52 min andet1987 2,366
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 53 min WasteWater 45,016
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr confrinting with ... 650,847
More from around the web