Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258482 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.

blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187410 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, BartBuffoon, if the best guess of science on matters are proven wrong later, science was wrong at the time.
That being the case, science is likely wrong about some things they tell us now.
This would suggest it unwise to totally trust science.
Comprehension. Work on it.
Sorry once again that you fail to understand how the scientific method operates. You are still disappointed that science cannot see into the future and always be right. Probably best if you completely abandon any science whatsoever and consider casing bones and chanting for your answers, or do what Theists do, just make shit up, seems they are very comfortable with unsupported claims.

BTW, PLEASE stay the 9uck out of hospitals, that medical science gets it wrong all the time, consider finding a witch doctor for whatever ails you.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187411 Nov 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
No--- you are patently TOO STUPID to do such a thing.
The "answer" you posted is a lie. Not adjusted for inflation, for one.
Does not factor in the increased gross national income for another.
The "answer" you gave? A big fat lie-- created by a conservitard just like YOU.
Too stupid for your own good.
Blob. There was no inflation from 2008 to 2009.

If you factored 10% inflation, the deficit still more than doubled.

And GDP,(there's no such metric as 'gross national income') only gives a ratio to output and borrowing, saying nothing about the size of the deficit.

Your true record-deficit guy is Obama, Blob.

5 time winner. By a country mile. It's not close.

Bush spent like a drunken sailor, and Obama upped his borrowing by 4X.

There it is, Blob.

Are you glad you brought it up?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187412 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, reason and logic combined with total lack of evidence convinced me.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

To us open-minded folks anyway....

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#187413 Nov 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I met Michael Dudikoff.
I was an extra in one of his movies, Soldier Boyz.
I know you haven't seen it, it was such a terrible B movie.
Dudikoff was an arrogant pill. Thought he was as cool as Van Damme or something.
lol

I had to google Michael Dudikoff - I haven't seen any of his films.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187414 Nov 26, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You could not prove that the sky was blue on a cloudless day, silly!
This is because you reject any and all **science**-- and the **only** way to show **why** the sky appears blue, is with **science**.
I'm so sorry for your loss (of sanity).
But....the sky isn't blue...
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187415 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no James Randi prize.
Never was.
It is a proven scam.
And yes, it has been claimed.
He would not pay up.
James Randi is a proven con-artist and a proven charlatan.
He has been adjudicated as a liar in court.
New-Age Spiritual guy is correct on the paranormal being observed by scientific processes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =YB3SAD-gHTcXX
In January 2007, Randi announced a major change in the rules:

As of April 1, 2007, we will require two major qualifications of all those who will be eligible. First, any applicant will be required to have a media profile. By that, we mean that there must be some media recognition – a television interview, a newspaper account, some press write-up, or a reference in a book, that provides details of the claimed abilities of the applicant....The second requirement will be that the applicant must provide an endorsement of an academic nature. That means some sort of validation from an appropriately-qualified academic....

Once these qualifications have been offered, we will follow up on them, asking for validation; we’ll require that the cited authorities verify that they did make such a statement about the applicant, or that they hold such an opinion, and that they still stand by that statement. Anecdotal material will not be accepted.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187416 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry once again that you fail to understand how the scientific method operates. You are still disappointed that science cannot see into the future and always be right. Probably best if you completely abandon any science whatsoever and consider casing bones and chanting for your answers, or do what Theists do, just make shit up, seems they are very comfortable with unsupported claims.
BTW, PLEASE stay the 9uck out of hospitals, that medical science gets it wrong all the time, consider finding a witch doctor for whatever ails you.
Well, you got one thing right.

"medical science gets it wrong all the time"

My dead mother-in-law is evidence of that.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#187417 Nov 26, 2013
Thinking wrote:
He'd started so of course he'd have to finish.
Saw Philip Schofield at T5 the other day. Looked miserable as sin.
<quoted text>
When I was a kid living in the Philippines I met Michael Caine and Lance Percival at the Manila Yacht Club.

They were in the country shooting a film called "Too Late the Hero".

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187418 Nov 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
http://old.richarddawkins.net/ articles/125-what-use-is-relig ion-part-1
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/124-wh...
<quoted text>
The question may not be so unanswerable.
Dawkins makes a compelling argument that children who simply believe trusted authority figures have a survival advantage over those that have to learn about things like traffic the hard way, and that this behavior that has been adaptive over the ages may now be a liability in the face of organized religion.
Dawkins didn't mention the ability of people to mature beyond that childlike trusting stage if they can learn to think independently and critically, and how religion actively battles to subvert that maturation - to make childlike trust and obedience in adulthood seem like a virtue as the story about the soldiers marching to their death for lack of a halt order exemplified.
Religion survives by undermining critical thought, insulting human learning, calling blind trust a virtue, promoting magical thinking, and giving the initiate reasons to deny his sense of reason and moral truth - what is called his puny mind being manipulated by demons - and accept the absurd in its place.
By Dawkins reckoning, there is no god gene, just a subordination and obedience gene being fostered and exploited by the priesthood to its own benefit. As Dawkins notes when discussing the moths flying into the flame, we have to ask the right question, which is not what survival advantage suicidal behavior confers, but how an ancient instinct that does confer survival advantage can go wrong when the environment changes, as when things like light bulbs and organized religion appear after the behaviors have been selected for.
I think that is probably the best explanation.
If we made up a characteristic that has never been observed or even existed, and convinced people like Dawkins it had occurred, he would write an extensive, detailed, erudite explanation of exactly how it evolved for a particular purpose.

He would also supply the advantages and disadvantages.

And whatever the made-up feature, it would portend badly for people of faith.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#187419 Nov 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks.
<quoted text>
I don't like fighting any more, but I have been willing to do it here on Topix in the past. That seems to have changed over the last two years. I can't say why, but I think our life changes may be part of the answer. I was unhappy with the nation and with what medicine had become. Fighting was in the air. Retirement and the change of venue four years ago might have been a factor.
Maybe you'll grow tired of the fight as well sometime soon. Good luck.
Buck's last post to me was in a similar vein.

I think I said I'd buy him a beer.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187420 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>
In January 2007, Randi announced a major change in the rules:
As of April 1, 2007, we will require two major qualifications of all those who will be eligible. First, any applicant will be required to have a media profile. By that, we mean that there must be some media recognition – a television interview, a newspaper account, some press write-up, or a reference in a book, that provides details of the claimed abilities of the applicant....The second requirement will be that the applicant must provide an endorsement of an academic nature. That means some sort of validation from an appropriately-qualified academic....
Once these qualifications have been offered, we will follow up on them, asking for validation; we’ll require that the cited authorities verify that they did make such a statement about the applicant, or that they hold such an opinion, and that they still stand by that statement. Anecdotal material will not be accepted.
There is no Amazing Randi prize.

There never was one.

Amazing is a proven liar and scam artist.

His prize is a publicity stunt.

The prize is not winnable because there is no prize, and no contest.

Did you like it that Amazing had to admit he lied about watching the tape of Sheldrake's work, and admit he never saw it?

How about Amazing losing his debunking data in a flood?

That was a good one.

Amazing participated in some applicants' experiments, and he failed them, even though he could not find a flaw in the work, but because they "just had to be" tricking him somehow.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#187421 Nov 26, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. why does the universe exist ??..
.. what is the meaning of life ??..
.. is there a God or is it all an illusion ??..
.. is this all there is ??..
<quoted text>
.. thanks for your honesty; your answer makes perfect sense ..
.. when an individual is unable to solve a problem,(s)he instinctively seeks out an authority figure for guidance, advice or assistance ..
.. what do you think of Noam Chomsky's quote below ??..
“I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom.”
.. to me, Chomsky is saying we must question the authority of the church for the good of humanity, my old fear -vs- freedom argument ..
<quoted text>
.. OH !! Thanks. So, Satan makes people post scripture that serves their individual needs ??..
The Meaning of Life wasn't as good as the Life of Brian

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187422 Nov 26, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
When I was a kid living in the Philippines I met Michael Caine and Lance Percival at the Manila Yacht Club.
They were in the country shooting a film called "Too Late the Hero".
I had a fist fight with Howie Long in a bar.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187423 Nov 26, 2013
Agreed.
I've got tickets for Python on July 1st.
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
The Meaning of Life wasn't as good as the Life of Brian

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#187424 Nov 26, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> The message seems to indicate you must shit or get off the bowl. You being blighted by doubt and unbelief, him being recalcitrant and treating people as youve described in a previous post . MDD doesn't help either. God being benevolent, would not reject a humble and contrite spirit should you "hit bottom" and seek salvation again.
I decided to give the bible another go so I picked it up and let it fall open at a random page.

Imagine my surprise when a green and gold trout suddenly appeared and fell into my lap.

I then had a truly inspirational conversation with the trout who informed me that he was speaking on behalf of the Lord of Hosts and that I had been chosen to be the first to hear his new message.

==========

As a believer, you have to seriously consider that I am 100% truthful in what I say.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#187425 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
...or a piece of anything. Right?
An insult coming from someone I truly respect and admire would most definitely affect me. An insult coming from someone such as yourself who has amassed nothing but a lifetime of broken dreams and a track record of abject failure, well, why would you even try?
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187426 Nov 26, 2013
And not a lot of people know that.

My wife's happiest celeb encounter was Patrick Macnee at a luggage carousel. Very frail but very charming.

We also met Tim Brooke Taylor in Madrid airport. They kept reallocating our plane so we played "One gate to the tune of another." He was a lot of fun, his wife looked like she'd heard it all before.

In both cases the celebs led the conversation, I generally leave them alone, they need their own space too.
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
When I was a kid living in the Philippines I met Michael Caine and Lance Percival at the Manila Yacht Club.
They were in the country shooting a film called "Too Late the Hero".

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#187427 Nov 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I'm arguing with blacklagoon.
He wrote: "When anything in question is observable and testable by science, when it becomes the absolute BEST explanation at this present time, it becomes a FACT."
Don't you find any objections to that?
Doesn't anybody on this thread other than me find an objection to that?
Yes, I can agree with you that something that has been tested and the results that are obtained may not be exactly the true facts. However, they would be the best information that we have, I guess, at that point in time. If they had been tested, for example, used to send a man to the moon, or used to create an atomic bomb and dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and in both cases functioned as expected, it would seem that they would be true facts.

I know that some of what I was taught in university, which was considered factual at the time, has since been found to have been partially incorrect. For example, and I may be wrong as I am talking 45 years ago, we were taught that 2,4-D broadleaf herbicide was perfectly safe to use as a spray on fields, because it was rendered inactive once it had hit the ground (I probably have this description a bit skewed), but when it fell on the leaves of broadleaf plants it would kill them. I used it quite a bit as a main herbicide when I was farming, and have used it a little bit since in past years on my lawns (I don't have a lawn at the moment, living in an 8th floor apartment) to control dandelions and other broadleaf weeds, but it does not harm grasses, and so is ideal for that purpose. More recently studies however have shown that 2,4-D may have harmful effects on animals and fish, and some countries have put wide restrictions on its use.

That example could be a case where the best knowledge at the time was not 100% true, however the knowledge that the chemical did do the job for which it was intended was and is still true.

I think, though, in this forum, we are talking more of evidence of things that cannot be tested, such as the existence of an invisible super entity, which man has named God, and in this case the best information we have today is that there has been nil evidence ever found and tested to prove the existence of any gods, and therefore today that could be taken as a fact that there are no gods. I would not stand behind saying it is 100% true, but I will fly on an airplane, even though I know that out of the millions of air flights annually there are a few that crash and people are killed. I do know though that planes do fly, because I have tested that fact myself, and therefore, I am willing to go with the fact as a truth. With many facts which man has proved to be true, there can be accidents and exceptions when the facts do not follow through as expected. The reasons though can usually be explained with actual facts (rather than god did it).

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187428 Nov 26, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry once again that you fail to understand how the scientific method operates. You are still disappointed that science cannot see into the future and always be right. Probably best if you completely abandon any science whatsoever and consider casing bones and chanting for your answers, or do what Theists do, just make shit up, seems they are very comfortable with unsupported claims.
BTW, PLEASE stay the 9uck out of hospitals, that medical science gets it wrong all the time, consider finding a witch doctor for whatever ails you.
Not quite, you lantern-face moron.

I understand how the scientific method operates.

You do not understand the difference in the record of the past, the future, and the present.

I'm not saying a word about "science seeing into the future".

I'm saying the record indicates that science is likely wrong about some things RIGHT NOW.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187429 Nov 26, 2013
Buck fails to understand that the scientific method is a feedback mechanism.
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry once again that you fail to understand how the scientific method operates. You are still disappointed that science cannot see into the future and always be right. Probably best if you completely abandon any science whatsoever and consider casing bones and chanting for your answers, or do what Theists do, just make shit up, seems they are very comfortable with unsupported claims.
BTW, PLEASE stay the 9uck out of hospitals, that medical science gets it wrong all the time, consider finding a witch doctor for whatever ails you.

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
Bring the jobs back to the USA! 36 min Paul is dead 19
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 57 min Clearwater 37,097
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 hr oneear69 988,559
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 hr oneear69 688,839
You are of your father.....the devil 5 hr Doctor REALITY 1
We do NOT need any walls! 6 hr takelam 47
is god black or white? and why? (Oct '08) 6 hr what 458
More from around the web