Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256028 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: May 10

Location hidden

#186898 Nov 23, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think they expect to see life arise from non life in short term experiments.
They are attempting to create conditions where they may be able to observe minute aspects of the larger process, like the structural ordering of molecules.
They might even find out that a magnet on a string brought order to the first thingy.
We can observe "minute aspects" of pigs flying.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186899 Nov 23, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Your gift of a video depicting a roomful of washed up geriatric musicians who still think its the mid '70s has been accepted.
They might be has-beens.

You are a never-will-be.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186900 Nov 23, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm all for fiscal responsibility.
But that's never going to happen, if there are any ReThuglicans left in office-- they do hold the record for deficit spending.
Anytime the national budget becomes balanced? The ReThugs figure out how to start a war somewhere-- and all considerations of a balanced budget are out the window-- and back to the deficit borrow-and-spend policies of Ronnie-Ray-Gun.
I have **yet** to see a republican plan that is financially reasonable-- you cannot give away tax-money to the super rich, nor to the corporations, if you wish to have a balanced budget.
And we have proven-- beyond a doubt-- that Ronnie-Ray-Gun's trickle-down "economics" simply does not work.
It never did-- and it never will. Too much greed at the top.
The last balanced budget occurred when Republicans held Clinton and Democrats, against their protests, to spending limits in the 90's.

The "record for deficit spending" is held by President Barack Obama - 5 times.

For 2 of his 5 record deficits, he had a Democrat house and senate, and a Democrat Senate for all 5.

The previous president with record deficits was George W. Bush.

Obama borrowed at Bush's rate X 2.

Blob, you are an empty-headed, lying piece of dog shit.

I don't mean that as an insult.

Just being analytical.

You know less about current events than a coma victim, or a dead man.

Again, I don't mean that as an insult. Hope you don't take it that way.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#186902 Nov 23, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The evidence for emotion does not lie in the ability to for one person to feel the pain, fear, or joy of another directly. Barring some kind of telepathy, we feel our own emotions,and project them onto others behaving the way we do when we experience those emotions. Do you really doubt that a dog that you know well that appears happy actually is?
The fact that virtually nobody is debating whether others experience emotion is evidence that we all have what we consider proof that they do.
Do you recall the distinction between psychological doubt and intellectual or philosophical doubt, the former being felt as uncertainty, the latter merely understood? There is an interesting concept in the philosophy of mind called solipsism, "the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist" (wiki).
It's a great illustration of philosophical doubt - we can, if we think about it, realize that we have no way of knowing if other heads and brains contain minds because we can only experience those minds through their effects on other bodies. The question of whether animals or other people actually experience the emotions they appear to experience is a related issue.
But while we can with study and contemplation come to understand this uncertainty - i.e., embrace philosophical doubt - in our bones, we know without any sense of uncertainty that these other minds exist and that they experience emotions, that is, there is no psychological doubt.
Contrast this with god belief, which many of us question. Ask yourself what the essential difference is between an emotion and a god that one is beyond (psychological) doubt, but the other is hotly contested.
RR has convinced me through his argument that, indeed, the god need is real.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186903 Nov 23, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>If it involves the universe and what may have come before, then of course it has something to do with cosmology.
Lawrence Krauss has a very good hypothesis as to what constitutes "nothing" You are still spinning your wheels as you have NOT given me your definition of "nothing" I have Krauss's, now give me yours then we might be able to begin to define both something and nothing in trying to determine is SOMETHING, can come from NOTHING,
No.

I refuse to play along with the ruse.

Krauss has no hypothesis.

What Krauss does is take something, which is not nothing, and call it nothing.

Once accomplished, then he says something can come from nothing.

It's that simple.

It is the exact same principle as calling a dog's tail a leg, then declaring that dogs have 5 legs.

It cannot be explained to you any clearer than that. I used small words.

Now, if you ask me again for an example or definition of nothing, you will get nothing.

By the way, you have proven you are an idiot.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#186904 Nov 23, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
We can observe "minute aspects" of pigs flying.
Like how your tail straightens out at speed?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186905 Nov 24, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you reject the statistical analysis?
<quoted text>
How would that contradict the idea that all life on earth descended from a single common ancestral species.
<quoted text>
Same response.
Shouldn't you be looking to show that some extant life forms derived from a different ancestor than some of the others, the two ancestral forms not being related to one another?
I don't have a problem with universal common descent in principle.

I contend the evidence is presently exaggerated, putting the cart before the horse.

The statistics rely on assumptions concerning the linear nature of progression which depends on the assumption of abiogenesis.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186906 Nov 24, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see an argument here. The proteins tell us that the life forms are related. The assumption is that modern life forms evolved from ancestral life forms,and the question is how many. The biomolecular homologies found in all living things suggests that they all had the same ancestral species. To have evolved convergently from unrelated ancestors was calculated to be exceedingly unlikely.
<quoted text>
Disagree. Darwinism works just as well beginning with an intelligently designed ancestral cell left to evolve naturalistically, that is, by natural selection of genetic variations in offspring. And what we are considering is whether all of life descended from one such cell or from two that came to exist independently is the
No, Darwinism does not work, as written, with an intelligently designed ancestral cell, because that would diminish the element of random chance mutations being filtered by a blind filter of environment and natural selection to create biological diversity.

Speciation and diversity would be pre-programmed.

Natural selection would still operate, but in itself, could not be in possession of the creative power attributed to it by the current theory.

This would be a nice fit, since natural selection is awarded such explanatory and creative power in ceremonial fashion by science, as a matter of necessity for a strict materialism.

Just like abiogenesis.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186907 Nov 24, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Your criteria for accepting evidence of a miracle seems to be considerably more lax than that for accepting evidence of descent from a common ancestor, the odds of which being estimated at 1 x 10^2680 : 1]
I don't have sufficient familiarity with how those statistics are derived to critique them, except on general terms.

My comment on miracles applied a very lax sense of the term, intentionally so, and candidly so, in order to express a point of view about life and its problems.

I don't argue for miracles, in the stricter sense, and I'm not sure I believe one has ever occurred.

I'll settle for life with some astonishing positive turn of events.

Calling them "miracles" adds only a poetic flourish, as far as I'm concerned, not a religious foundation.

I find it satisfying, good, and generally uplifting.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186908 Nov 24, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Oooo
That hurt.
That the best you got?
Yeah, that's it. I have no more comebacks.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186909 Nov 24, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
The verb create contains the assumption of time: a before and after state. If there is no before and after, then it is no more correct to say create than destroy, and neither is as accurate as to conceive of the simultaneous superposition of both states.
This kind of thinking - thinking outside of time - is highly counterintuitive, alien to the usual modes of thought, and rife with apparent paradox. We think in terms of objects, relationships, qualities, and processes. Processes imply time, but so does the idea of an object existing in a stable state. Persistence without change also implies time. One can barely think without time. Even an apparently timeless abstraction such as redness suggests time if we think of it as remaining red rather than evolving into blue.
It's very easy to arrange the words in the phrase "god existing out of time" or "god existing before time and creating it" as I did, but the words "existing," "before," and "creating" all defeat you by placing the god in its own time outside of our time - what I called meta-time.
Those words do not "place" god anywhere, except in your mind.

I comprehend that it is hard for your thinking to comprehend a creating force that created the world in time whereby you learned to use words to describe what you see in it. But those words you learn do not "place" things in relation to god.

That argument defeats nothing. It is only an argument about thinking.

Properties being "ineffable" does not tell us whether or how they exist. It only tells us they are difficult to talk about.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#186910 Nov 24, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Like how your tail straightens out at speed?
Like how your sticky hair comes loose from your face.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186911 Nov 24, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
RR has convinced me through his argument that, indeed, the god need is real.
The belief in a god seems to satisfy some need, since it comes at a cost that nobody would pay without getting some psychological itch scratched in return.

Such needs are familiar to most of us: the need for companionship, the need for love, the need to feel safe, the need for social acceptabiliy, and the like. You may be familiar with Abraham Maslow, who tried to enumerate and prioritize these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hiera...

Not everybody needs all of these. Some are loners and don't want the company of others, for example. The god need seems to fit in here: not all of us need it.

I'm interested in the degree to which this need is inborn and what fraction of it is acquired culturally. Whatever its origin, it appears to be a powerful motivator of behavior in some people.

I think Buck finds the term "god need" offensive. Sorry, Buck - none intended. It's meant to be descriptive, not judgmental. We're discussing the world we see, which includes people who, defend their god belief at significant personal cost, including such things as personal ridicule and the cognitive dissonance of trying to justify the bible's apparent errors and contradictions.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186912 Nov 24, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
Lawrence Krauss has a very good hypothesis as to what constitutes "nothing" You are still spinning your wheels as you have NOT given me your definition of "nothing" I have Krauss's, now give me yours then we might be able to begin to define both something and nothing in trying to determine is SOMETHING, can come from NOTHING
Buck Crick wrote:
No. I refuse to play along with the ruse. Krauss has no hypothesis. What Krauss does is take something, which is not nothing, and call it nothing. Once accomplished, then he says something can come from nothing. It's that simple. It is the exact same principle as calling a dog's tail a leg, then declaring that dogs have 5 legs.
This is a quirky behavior in you, Buck - fighting a request like this. You seem to think that he is pulling a fast one by asking you and he to agree a shared vocabulary.

So what if you call a tail a leg and then say a do has five legs? It's just a loss of clarity, not a trick to get you to say that a dog walks on five appendages. Under the new definition, a leg is not necessarily something used to walk. We could just as easily go the other way and call the front appendages arms, then say that a dog walks on two arms and two legs. It doesn't change our understanding of reality, just the words we use to describe it. Everyone still understands that a dog walks on four appendages.

It doesn't matter which of these schemes we adopt so long as we all use the same words the same way. Here, blacklagoon is asking you to define the word "nothing" in order to avoid the pitfalls inherent in a conversation like this one, the same type you alluded to when you mentioned "Who's on first."

Did you see Riverside Redneck's humorous equivocation exploiting two different understandings of the word "nothing"? It went something like this:

Nothing is better than a cold beer.
A warm beer is better than nothing.
Therefore, a warm beer is better than a cold beer.

Blacklagoon is correct to want to clarify definitions before proceeding with what is likely to be a very difficult discussion without such an agreement. And he is correct in being wary about proceeding without clearly defining terms. Your unwillingness and the intensity of your language ("refuse," "ruse") seem misplaced.
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#186913 Nov 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have a problem with universal common descent in principle.
I contend the evidence is presently exaggerated, putting the cart before the horse.
The statistics rely on assumptions concerning the linear nature of progression which depends on the assumption of abiogenesis.
Is your landlord over 60 years old? In your 2012 mugshot it appears you're not aging well, do you still have freakish strength?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186914 Nov 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
I don't have a problem with universal common descent in principle. I contend the evidence is presently exaggerated, putting the cart before the horse. The statistics rely on assumptions concerning the linear nature of progression which depends on the assumption of abiogenesis.
We've already been here. The assumption that abiogenesis occurred is not part of the analysis of whether all life on earth evolved from one line or more than one. Only evolution is assumed, not abiogenesis:

Buck Crick: All of Darwinism depends on a strictly constructed abiogenesis.

IANS: Disagree. Darwinism works just as well beginning with an intelligently designed ancestral cell left to evolve naturalistically

Let's stipulate to the intelligent design of unicellular life followed by naturalistic evolution. Did the Lord create one species with one general plan for growth and reproduction, or more than one, each going about the business of living in an unrelated way?

The answer lies in looking at the biomolecules and trying to decide if they derive from a common ancestor or not, however that ancestor came to be. And what the scientists have found is that the enzymes, structural proteins, nucleic acids, genetic code, translation and transcription strategies, energy storing strategies, and metabolic pathways are similar enough that they probably all derived from a common source and became slightly different from one another over deep time (divergent evolution, or adaptive radiation) rather than that they were originally unrelated and gradually converged (convergent evolution), a judgment made by considering and comparing the statistical likelihood of each possibility
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/H...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186915 Nov 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
No, Darwinism does not work, as written, with an intelligently designed ancestral cell, because that would diminish the element of random chance mutations being filtered by a blind filter of environment and natural selection to create biological diversity.
How?
Buck Crick wrote:
Speciation and diversity would be pre-programmed.
Why do you assume that? Could not the Good Lord have designed life to proceed without a program directing evolution?
Buck Crick wrote:
Natural selection would still operate, but in itself, could not be in possession of the creative power attributed to it by the current theory.
I think that's an unrelated topic. As I recall, you advocate for divinely guided evolution.

Why do you think you can estimate the limit of unguided evolution over time spans that we can give a number to, but cannot conceive? I don't see how anybody could.

What I sense is that you start with a god premise, and then impose limitations on evolution that make that god necessary.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186916 Nov 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
This would be a nice fit, since natural selection is awarded such explanatory and creative power in ceremonial fashion by science, as a matter of necessity for a strict materialism.
Just like abiogenesis.
If there is no god, then abiogenesis is necessary, and evolution can do everything that we think it has. The fact that it is almost exclusively theists arguing against abiogenesis and evolution, and the fact that most unbelievers have no problem accepting the possibility of these two shows us that it is religious faith that leads to the objections, not reason.

There is no other reason for you to be making this argument apart from your god belief and the need to give that god a role in the process. It's reasonable to assume that without your faith based beliefs, your opinion on this matter would be similar to the rest us that have no such belief.

You seem to have reverse engineered an argument that concluded that the process could not be as described based of a belief in a god, and argument that is now being presented as if you saw those limitations by examining the process, found them not up to the task, and were logically led to conclude an intelligent designer must have had a part.

I realize that you didn't claim all of that explicitly, but that's what is implied when you claim that nature could not have generated so much diversity without giving an explanation how you could know that or why you think it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186917 Nov 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
I don't have sufficient familiarity with how those statistics are derived to critique them, except on general terms. My comment on miracles applied a very lax sense of the term, intentionally so, and candidly so, in order to express a point of view about life and its problems. I don't argue for miracles, in the stricter sense, and I'm not sure I believe one has ever occurred. I'll settle for life with some astonishing positive turn of events. Calling them "miracles" adds only a poetic flourish, as far as I'm concerned, not a religious foundation.
I find it satisfying, good, and generally uplifting.
Good post, Buck. Nobody could reasonably argue with something like this, and your demeanor was exemplary.

And I agree: the world is astonishing without using the word "miracle."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#186918 Nov 24, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Those words do not "place" god anywhere, except in your mind.
No argument there.
Buck Crick wrote:
I comprehend that it is hard for your thinking to comprehend a creating force that created the world in time
Actually, I was arguing that if an act of creation occurred, it occurred in time of some sort.
Buck Crick wrote:
That argument defeats nothing. It is only an argument about thinking. Properties being "ineffable" does not tell us whether or how they exist. It only tells us they are difficult to talk about.
Yet you make positive assertions and strong claims about them nevertheless. It is interesting that the type of argument that you just made is made when the theist has reached a logical dead end. He has no difficulty understanding his god when singing its praises and describing a good, loving, or rational creator god.

But when logical impossibilities and moral dilemmas arise, the language changes to something like yours above, and we are told that the reality transcends our limited grasp. I have called it the puny mind defense in the past, and it comes in two flavors. The following was cut-and-pasted from a June 2011 post:

[1] The intellectually ridiculous:

"Everything that exists must have a creator, therefore god exists. God doesn't need a creator because he is out of time. If that seems contradictory to you, it is because your mind is too puny to comprehend it, like an ant trying to learn calculus."

[2] Morally ridiculous:

"God's love for man is perfect. Those that don't worship him will be turned over to a demon to be tortured forever. That is perfect love even if you can't see it because of your puny mind, like a child crying about getting a vaccine."

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 Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Charles 650,306
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min another viewer 971,778
News Asian Newspaper Under Fire for 'I Hate Blacks' ... (Feb '07) 18 min dave 87
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 30 min Xcentric in Vidor 445,915
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 50 min WasteWater 2,328
Washing machines are a waste of water and energy 1 hr Green Guy 1
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr ATHEOI 56,031
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 16 hr akon mason 70
More from around the web