Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258473 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.

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).

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.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#187430 Nov 26, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello there old friend!
I could tell from my Google search that he had made a name for himself many years ago by the shots of him as a much younger man. But I first saw him in Game of Thrones.
I haven't seen Homeland or The Walking Dead, but I did just watch all 62 episodes of Breaking Bad mid-September and now when AMC rebroadcast them prior to airing the series finale.
Incidentally, did you notice that the families were roughly named after the two branches of the Plantagenet line that fought the War of the Roses, the Lancasters (red rose) and Yorks (white rose)? In Game of Thrones, they were the Lannisters and Starks.
I hadn't spotted the War of the Roses connection.

I guess you saw the news earlier this year about how they dug up the bones of Richard III who was found under a Leicester car park.

Now there's a squabble about where to inter the bones. Leicester want the remains to go in the local cathedral while York say he should be laid to rest in the minster.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187431 Nov 26, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Buck fails to understand that the scientific method is a feedback mechanism.
<quoted text>
Is that why you keep feeding the same shit back?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#187432 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the only time Amazing Randi has been sued.
Amazing has falsified data from multiple experiments.
Amazing was ruled a liar in court.
Are you going to provide links or just make unsupported allegation?

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#187433 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I had a fist fight with Howie Long in a bar.
I had to google him as well.

I hope you knocked seven bells out of him.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#187434 Nov 26, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Agreed.
I've got tickets for Python on July 1st.
<quoted text>
Hope it's great!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#187435 Nov 26, 2013
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
If something is not a fact, it's not a fact.

Even if science calls it a fact and even if they have tested it and found it to be fact. What is not a fact is never a fact.

The point is that it's ridiculous to trust science, as it changes seemingly every single day.

There is evidence of God. What kind of evidence would you prefer?

Since: Sep 10

Arcadia, CA

#187436 Nov 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh lol
It's bated, huh?
Oh well.
At least I can fix my own A/C.
And make a list.

A list of one.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#187437 Nov 26, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And make a list.
A list of one.
26 Nov 2013

IDIOTS MAKING IDIOTIC POSTS TODAY:

Catcher1
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187438 Nov 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you got one thing right.
"medical science gets it wrong all the time"
My dead mother-in-law is evidence of that.
Tell you what, take 20 people all with serious illnesses, admit 10 to the hospital and let medical science deal with them, have the other 10 stay home and pray for God to cure them. Lets take a poll down the road and see how many God cures and how many medical science cured. Being completely honest, which group would you chose to be in giving that you had a very serious illness?

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#187439 Nov 26, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And make a list.
A list of one.
BTW...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/feature/why-...

I immediately thought of you.

How many scars does your dog have for not obeying your commands?
blacklagoon

Brookline, MA

#187440 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 2008, the JREF announced that the offer of the million dollar prize will cease on March 6, 2010.[new] However, the prize is still being offered. Click here for the rules.[/new]
There are others offering prizes to anyone who can demonstrate psychic powers. After collecting the million dollars from Randi, successful psychics might go to India and contact B. Premanand who will pay Rs. 100,000 "to any person or persons who will demonstrate any psychic, supernatural of paranormal ability of any kind under satisfactory observing conditions." Also, "Prabir Ghosh will pay Rs. 20,00,000* to anyone who claims to possess supernatural power of any kind and proves the same without resorting to any trick in the location specified by Prabir Ghosh."
The Australian Skeptics offer $100,000 (Australian),$80,000 for the psychic and $20,000 for anyone "who nominates a person who successfully completes the Australian Skeptics Challenge." If you nominate yourself, and are successful, you get the whole hundred grand.
The Association for Skeptical Inquiry (ASKE), a U.K. skeptic organization, offers £12,000 for proof of psychic powers.
The Independent Investigations Group "offers a $50,000 prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."
The North Texas Skeptics offer $12,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic or paranormal power or ability under scientifically valid observing conditions.
The Quebec Skeptics offer $10,000 to any astrologer who can demonstrate her craft according in a formal scientific experiment.
The Tampa Bay Skeptics offer $1,000 to anyone able to demonstrate any paranormal phenomenon under mutually agreed-upon observing conditions.
A group in New Zealand calling itself "Immortality" is offering a prize of $NZ2,000,000 to anyone "who can display an actual paranormal ability, under controlled conditions." One million goes to the successful applicant and one million to the charity of his or her choice.
Finally, conjurer Chris Angel offered $1,000,000 of his own money to Uri Geller and Jim Callahan if they could psychically determine the contents of an envelope he held in his hand. The offer was in response to Callahan's claim that his performance of a trick on a TV show called "Phenomenon" was aided by spirit guide.
The offer of cash prizes as an incentive to so-called psychics to prove their claims is not new. In 1922, Scientific American offered two $2,500 awards, one for the first person who could produce an authentic spirit photograph under test conditions and the other for the first medium to produce an authentic "visible psychic manifestation" (Christopher 1975: 180). Houdini, the foremost magician of the period, was a member of the investigating committee. Nobody won the prizes. The first to announce she was ready to be tested was Elizabeth Allen Tomson, but after she was caught with twenty yards of gauze taped to her groin, flowers under her breasts, and a snake in her arm pit, she was never formally tested (Christopher 1975: 188). The honor of being the first medium tested by the Scientific American team went to George Valiantine. He didn't know that the chair he sat in during his séance in a completely darkened room had been wired to light up a signal in an adjoining room every time he left his seat. Oddly, phenomena such as a voice speaking from a trumpet that floated about the room happened only at the exact moments the signal lit up.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#187441 Nov 26, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you going to provide links or just make unsupported allegation?
Neither.

I'm going to refrain from arguing about the fraud - Amazing Randi.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#187442 Nov 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your opinionically correct, that I cannot prove that man creat
Yes, however man has historically had beliefs in many gods, and generally today we have dismissed all of the very ancients beliefs as being the inventions of those primitive civilizations. Information about the Abrahamic God dates back in history to ~ 3000 or 4000 years BCE and that is a drop in the bucket of time of the total time of man's existence on this planet.

The basis for the current major world religions, or at least that of about 4 billion humans, being Christians and Muslims, and the tiny number of Jews, is taken from books, which were compiled mainly withing the past 1800 years. We have a lot of information today that has disproved much of what all of those books have told man. The totally fundamentalist of these religions still claim (as I understand it) that the "holy" books are 100% fact, however, they cannot be proved to be partly fiction, and still be 100% fact. It would seem to me that the three mentioned religions all accept the same God as being perfect, so that an imperfect account of this God could not have come from a perfect God, which lends to the credibility that the information came from man.

Yes, man, in order to survive for hundreds of thousands of years had taught himself how to feed himself and how to cover himself against freezing to death, through sheer necessity, but aside from the strictly obvious things such as a skin taken off an animal can be wrapped around your body and keep you warm, or the fibres, or pieces of grass can be woven in a material that can be wrapped around your body to achieve the same thing. He, however, did not know anything about the internal properties of those things, or how they grew etc., other that they just did it.

Most of us today would be dead within a few days, weeks or months, depending on what part of the world we lived in, if we had to exist as man did even a few hundred years ago, because we have not learned what man did in those days to stay alive. The majority of western society people lived in cities, in highrise buildings, and could not feed themselves after the last of the food they ransacked from stores was eaten or spoiled, nor could they keep themselves warm for very long in cold weather, simply because there are too many in a small space, and none know what to do.

Our greatest danger today is to have our technology suddenly become unable to function. I have read that about 90% of North Americans would be dead within a year, if we lost all electrical and electronic functions (which is not a total impossibility). When I think about the several months of lost electricity that parts of the USA and Canada suffered during an ice storm several years ago, some of which affected members of my family, it scares me what would have happened, had that have covered the whole continent. Because the surrounding areas were not without resources, very few people actually died in that event, because help could be sent to them, or get them to a place where they could be helped, but if the whole continent lost its electricity, aside from what might still be brought in by planes from other continents (but the planes could not refuel after coming here), we would become helpless as a mass very quickly.

My Sc degree which is 43 years old was mainly in the life sciences so I think I did at least know much more than people did back in those days, though I have likely forgotten the details of a lot of it. But having known the info exists, and generally knowing the processes involved, I don't need to create gods to explain what they needed gods to explain back then.

The could deal with those kinds of things in those days because they had no means to not deal with them. Yes, they had found some things they ate or drank which over time they had decided must make a difference, but they would not have a clue why those things acted.
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#187443 Nov 26, 2013
Redneck thinks he can list one all powerful yet not omnipotent god.
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And make a list.
A list of one.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#187444 Nov 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You seek miracles.
You seek proof.
You seek God.
You're not convinced that He isn't out there for you and I'm curious as to why? What did you lose that you blame God for?
I believe that God's love for us is beyond our ability to fully understand, but not beyond our ability to realize.
John 3:1:
"See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us that we should be called children of God; and such we are. For this reason the world does not know us, because it did no know Him."
It's the realization of God's love and purity that motivates us Christians.
To those that haven't experienced it, I defer you to IANS' analogy of being God blind, like color blind.
Only in terms of debating with believers who exhibit some very unhealthy attitudes towards other human beings do I seek proof of those things. I do not personally seek proof of God, miracles or anything of that nature, because I am convinced that, since none has been found by human beings collectively over the total of our time on this earth, such proof does not exist. I make statements about "proof" only to refute statements made by believes that these things exist, and that they "know" they exist.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#187445 Nov 26, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither.
I'm going to refrain from arguing about the fraud - Amazing Randi.
So you have no hard proof for any of your allegations?
I didn't think so.
Isn't that called slander?

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
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 10 min RiccardoFire 46,194
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 12 min RiccardoFire 184,746
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 40 min Catcher1 110,267
snapchat dirty pics shemale (May '14) 58 min Cali4real12 30
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 hr Bongo 12
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr President DonJ Trump 675,587
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 hr waaasssuuup 982,210
More from around the web