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.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#188172 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Ians: "Now perhaps you can offer us something Dembski said to support your contention that he made Hitchens look ignorant and childish."
That's easy. The hard part is choosing which instance to use where Dembski made him look ignorant and childish.
We could start with the title of the debate - "Does God Exist".
All the citations you offered from Hitchens are misdirection by him, as is always the case. He prefers to debate biblical inerrancy and religion as to the nature of God, which is what you offered above.
Perhaps more to the point, Dembski skewers Hitchens before the debate even gets to a back-and-forth, simply by reading from Hitchens' book and reducing it to nonsense.
Dembski quotes from the book where Hitch says one should not believe in a god because of science, specifically Darwinian evolution. "The mystery is gone", he says, so there is no need for god.
Then Dembski quotes Hitchens specific reasons - and shows that Hitchens is WRONG on all of them:
1. Junk DNA (myth)
2. Cambrian explosion (mystery not gone)
3. Inverted retina - too low an expectation for a design (proven false)
4. Neilson and Pelger computer model of eye ( shows how it is proof of absolutely nothing)
So, we have Dembski specifically reducing Hitchen's justifications for disbelief in god to crap.
This is in the first 15 minutes.
Dembski makes a statement that sums up not only Hitchens view, but also YOURS, Iman. And he does it quite well, for a religious freak who knows nothing:
"His atheism DEMANDS a purely materialistic theory. And there's only one going. Design is unthinkable, because atheism demands it so".
Yes you are correct, he certainly knows nothing, particularly about atheism, which may explain why he was talking through his butt. Atheism does not demand anything, atheism simply is the logical result of evidence in one direction and complete lack of evidence in the other.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188173 Nov 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I don't watch movies much, but my seatmate on the plane was watching a movie that reminded me of you. I think it's For Grownups Two. Adam Sandler and Penelope Cruz. You gotta see it, it's redneck city.
And oh, no cucumber slices in the water this time, just lime.
Nah.. I didn't like Grown Ups 1. I couldn't even finish it.

I saw "We're the Millers". Eh... Jennifer Aniston shows she can't lap dance for shit, but seeing here in a stripper's outfit is worth the watch :)

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188174 Nov 29, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
I found this survey very telling:
90% of ALL American are religious, have a personal God they pray to and worship.
When we go to those Americans who are educated, possessing masters and doctorate degrees that percentage drops to 60%
When we include scientists of all fields we find it drops to 40%
And when we include "elite" scientists, those in charge of major research programs the number drop further to just 7%
It does seem as though most polls taken over the years bears out the fact that intelligent levels favor the non-believers.
We see the proof of this everyday on topix with people rejecting scientific facts and grossly misunderstanding scientific concepts, or at worse having no education in the sciences whatsoever.
90% of all stats are made up on the spot.

I wonder what percentage of crackheads think crack is A-OK....

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188176 Nov 29, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't.
But some religious types are so wrapped up in their religion, that insist that everyone else must have a religion too. Therefore, to them, not having a religion (atheism) is, in fact, a religion.
No, it doesn't make sense.
Your post doesn't make sense.

"not having a religion (atheism)"

No religion = atheism?

So it's ok to believe in a god, just don't have a religion and you're still an atheist?

WTF?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#188177 Nov 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
90% of all stats are made up on the spot.
I wonder what percentage of crackheads think crack is A-OK....
Wrong, by a long way.

Real stats are compiled from data collected, usually over time

however between 73.5% and 156.9% of all false statistics are made up on the spot by 66.87% of people that produce bogus stats for 52.3% of the time they are producing them.

Unless it’s Friday or the pubs are about to close

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188178 Nov 29, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
I saw the debate with Craig, all of these apologist have the same problem, they have a preconceived notion that God exists and created all there is
As you atheists have the preconceived notion that God doesn't exist and created nothing.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188179 Nov 29, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
I am sure we have been here before.
There is no scientific reason why something cannot come from nothing, the laws of quantum theory do not disallow it
The fundamental laws of this universe in the atomic domain were not resolved until after the universe began to expand.
Therefore it is at least scientifically possible for something to come from nothing.
O_o

Did I...
ChristineM wrote:
Therefore it is at least scientifically possible for something to come from nothing.
Did I read that right?
ChristineM wrote:
Therefore it is at least scientifically possible for something to come from nothing.
Yup. Sure did.
ChristineM wrote:
Therefore it is at least scientifically possible for something to come from nothing.
Just makes no fuckingsense at all.
ChristineM wrote:
Therefore it is at least scientifically possible for something to come from nothing.
I suppose you have evidence for that...

Cuz I know how you atheists are with evidence and all...

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188180 Nov 29, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
Pear make the cables and claim they improve the sound of the Hifi. They also charge thousands for them so it's only fair they actually prove their claim. How hard is this to test? All that's needed is a sound system, someone to swap the cables over and a few volunteer test subjects. The opinion of some professional testers: "We will find that every topic Pear claims is important to cable design has been debunked as nonexistent, inaudible, or insignificant at audio frequencies. Coupled with the fact that exotic cable designs are not used by the professional broadcast and recording studios that produce the recordings in the first place, this non-issue of cables is further diminished in significance."
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables ...
Top Ten Signs an Audio Cable Vendor is Selling You Snake Oil
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables ...
__________

Ians wrote: Good post, and good Internet research.

==========

Yeah. Great stuff.

How hard is it to test?

Apparently, not that hard, though more complicated than Igor indicates, as extensive independent audio testing has already been done on the cables.

In fact, CEO Adam Blake refers to the testing in the same article where he points out that Amazing Randi is a liar and a fraud.

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp...

Loudspeakers: Effects of amplifiers and cables - Part 5
Philip Newell and Keith Holland

"They carried out tests on three, 6 metre lengths of different cables, firstly into a resistive 8 ohm load (Figure 6.7), then into a full-range loudspeaker system (Figure 6.8), and finally into a cabinet-mounted low frequency driver (Figure 6.9). The amplifier driving the cables was fed with a multitone test signal3,4, designed to show up non-linear distortions; in particular inter-modulation distortion."

"The distortion patterns were noticeably different, not only between the cables, but also between the input and output ends of each cable. The implication here is that the cables change the way that the complex load is seen by the amplifier. Voishvillo reported that upon seeing this, Czerwinski exclaimed "But they're only short cables!"

Or, we could do it as Igor suggests, hook up some cables and have a couple of dope smokers listen to it and see if they could manage a coherent sentence about it.

I suspect that is the test Amazing would also prefer, and his fraudulent offer, as always, is conditioned on nobody having a chance to win it.

You guys are pathetic.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188181 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:

Christine, you are a bald-faced liar.
No synthetic life has been created. None. Not once.
Let me repeat this so you can get it through that dumb, thick, girl-skull of yours:
NO SYNTHETIC LIFE HAS BEEN CREATED.
ChristineM wrote:
Funny that because the internet is full of articles telling how IT HAS in 2010,
Such a shame that real life does not agree with your delusions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762
The scientists "decoded" the chromosome of an existing bacterial cell.

No life created there...


Debate forum. Ignored.


Debate forum. Ignored.
"in 2010, his team transplanted man-made DNA into a bacterial cell"

Again, they're manipulating existing life, not creating new life.

Try again, sugar tits.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#188182 Nov 29, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Pear make the cables and claim they improve the sound of the Hifi. They also charge thousands for them so it's only fair they actually prove their claim.
How hard is this to test?
All that's needed is a sound system, someone to swap the cables over and a few volunteer test subjects.
The opinion of some professional testers:
"We will find that every topic Pear claims is important to cable design has been debunked as nonexistent, inaudible, or insignificant at audio frequencies. Coupled with the fact that exotic cable designs are not used by the professional broadcast and recording studios that produce the recordings in the first place, this non-issue of cables is further diminished in significance."
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables...
Top Ten Signs an Audio Cable Vendor is Selling You Snake Oil
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables...
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post, and good Internet research.
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Pear make the cables and claim they improve the sound of the Hifi. They also charge thousands for them so it's only fair they actually prove their claim.
How hard is this to test?
All that's needed is a sound system, someone to swap the cables over and a few volunteer test subjects.
The opinion of some professional testers:
"We will find that every topic Pear claims is important to cable design has been debunked as nonexistent, inaudible, or insignificant at audio frequencies. Coupled with the fact that exotic cable designs are not used by the professional broadcast and recording studios that produce the recordings in the first place, this non-issue of cables is further diminished in significance."
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables...
Top Ten Signs an Audio Cable Vendor is Selling You Snake Oil
http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables...
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post, and good Internet research.
The audio cable recommended to me by several audio engineers over around eight years of time is 2.5mm (or even 1.5) solid copper mains cable. Works as well (arguably better) than any high end, high price dedicated offering.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188183 Nov 29, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You're full of horse shit, Saltines.
Anyone who has thoroughly inspected the Venter experiments finds...
NO SYNTHETIC LIFE WAS CREATED.
Here's some "real life" for you. Venter started with LIFE, took out some parts of the LIFE, inserted parts from other LIFE, and got an already living cell to replicate.
Venter exaggerated his finding, and then the press exaggerated it more.
I will repeat it again, hoping to penetrate your dense, estrogen-effused mind:
NO SYNTHETIC LIFE HAS EVER BEEN CREATED.
One time, I took a banana and some ice cream and ***created*** a banana shake.

From scratch.

I should write a paper.

The atheists would swoon.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188184 Nov 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
As you well know, climate change deniers don't do evidence, although they will gladly offer as evidence any fact that they think they can use to support their faith based positions.
==========

More bull shit.

The faith-based religion is the climate change side.

It is a belief and a philosophy.

Evidence is meaningless.
----------

Wednesday, 05 June 2013 16:15
Cooking Climate Consensus Data:“97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked

"Cook’s claims received their biggest boost on May 16, when President Barack Obama tweeted:“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree:#climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

The mainstream media and climate-alarmist blogosphere uncritically accepted the Cook study and trumpeted the consensus claims as gospel. We reported on May 21 ("Global Warming 'Consensus': Cooking the Books") on the critiques of the Cook study by experts who show that Cook cooked the data. Out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That’s less than one percent, not 97 percent. Moreover, as we reported, the Cook study was flawed from the beginning, using selection parameters designed to weight the outcome in favor of the alarmist position."

Key words: "cooked the data"; "gospel"; "dangerous"; "uncritically"; "alarmist"; "designed to weight the outcome".

These key words sum up the global warming/climate change movement.

It is a religion.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#188185 Nov 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
O_o
Did I...
<quoted text>
Did I read that right?
<quoted text>
Yup. Sure did.
<quoted text>
Just makes no fuckingsense at all.
<quoted text>
I suppose you have evidence for that...
Cuz I know how you atheists are with evidence and all...
Whatever sense it makes to a dumbo like you is besides the point, just so long as it makes sense to particle physicists and other such quantum scientist who work in the quantum domain.

Yes I have already provided evidence in several forms for buck, he chooses to ignore and continue his scoffing in the usual buck way. If you would care to go pbck a few pages I am sure you will find it.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#188186 Nov 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
As you atheists have the preconceived notion that God doesn't exist and created nothing.
I was indoctrinated by my family to believe that god existed.

Then I learned that it didn't.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188187 Nov 29, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, by a long way.
Real stats are compiled from data collected, usually over time
however between 73.5% and 156.9% of all false statistics are made up on the spot by 66.87% of people that produce bogus stats for 52.3% of the time they are producing them.
Unless it’s Friday or the pubs are about to close
Are you sure that 156.9% of false stats are made up on the spot?

How is that even possible?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#188188 Nov 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
One time, I took a banana and some ice cream and ***created*** a banana shake.
From scratch.
I should write a paper.
The atheists would swoon.
Oh you are so boring, don’t bother, it’s already been done, here are a few examples

http://uktv.co.uk/food/recipe/aid/587383
http://www.food.com/recipe/easy-banana-milksh...
http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Banana-Milkshak...

So all you would get is an accusation of plagiarism but hey, you would consider that a slight against christianity wouldn’t you?

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188189 Nov 29, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever sense it makes to a dumbo like you is besides the point, just so long as it makes sense to particle physicists and other such quantum scientist who work in the quantum domain.
Yes I have already provided evidence in several forms for buck, he chooses to ignore and continue his scoffing in the usual buck way. If you would care to go pbck a few pages I am sure you will find it.
Go back and find nothing?

naw.

I don't share your beliefs.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188190 Nov 29, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
<quoted text>
Well done, Buck, and a huge contribution to thought on the subject. Religion only poisons many meaningful things, not everything or even everything meaningful.
What do you agree that it poisons?
If the trend continues of getting you and Bert Legume to dial back your positions, I might be able to make you tell the truth.

My position remains where it's been; yours moves toward mine.

There's hope for you and Bert.

I'm glad to provide this valuable service.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#188191 Nov 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Buck Crick wrote:
Christine, you are a bald-faced liar.
No synthetic life has been created. None. Not once.
Let me repeat this so you can get it through that dumb, thick, girl-skull of yours:
NO SYNTHETIC LIFE HAS BEEN CREATED.
<quoted text>
The scientists "decoded" the chromosome of an existing bacterial cell.
No life created there...
<quoted text>
Debate forum. Ignored.
<quoted text>
Debate forum. Ignored.
<quoted text>
"in 2010, his team transplanted man-made DNA into a bacterial cell"
Again, they're manipulating existing life, not creating new life.
Try again, sugar tits.
That my dear is why is the term SYNTHETIC is used

Try again drippy dick

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#188192 Nov 29, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure that 156.9% of false stats are made up on the spot?
How is that even possible?
110% certain

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 Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 5 min oneear69 37,310
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min Seentheotherside 688,927
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 min Gabriel 988,601
You are of your father.....the devil 1 hr Doctor REALITY 3
Why are Europeans a race of savages, thieves, a... (Jun '15) 1 hr Paul is dead 77
is god black or white? and why? (Oct '08) 1 hr my opinions 459
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 3 hr Tony 6,553
More from around the web