Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 239851 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.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188845 Dec 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Disagree.
I've already explained why what Venter did is rightly called the synthesis of DNA. Your comment is typical: a bare, unsupported, unexplained and unjustified assertion.
It's typical of you to prefer to attempt to argue than to attempt to elucidate. As I said, you are not here to exchange ideas or explore truth, but to fight. As a result, it takes a half dozen posts or more to communicate what collocutors engaging cooperatively in dialectic will typically accomplish in one or two.
From Wiki:
"Synthesis refers to a combination of two or more entities that together form something new; alternately, it refers to the creating of something by artificial means."

What Venter did was artificially synthesize something, yes?

This whole debate started when ChrisM posted that humans have created life and she used Venter's experiment as her "proof".

It was laughed off as it should've been, because Venter didn't create anything, he simply used existing matter and rearranged it.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188846 Dec 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Oh, Butt Cheeks... did you get that STD test like you need to?
"I told my doctor I think my wife has VD. He gave himself a shot of penicillin. Oh!" - Rodney Dangerfield

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188848 Dec 1, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =D2gHt-U1eSgXX
A good one. Here's it's cousin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188849 Dec 1, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>Well said, very concise, as clear as this is, Bucko will still argue with you, he'll replace a few words, take a few out and shape it so as it favors his views. It is actually entertaining to watch the show.
Ians added stipulations to the original assertion, and still he is wrong.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#188850 Dec 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Bull shit.
I am, however, impressed by you being able to determine what Carl Sagan was thinking after he's dead.
Nevertheless, you are wrong, Snide with Bitch.
We are talking about the same set of data. You are trying to limit your classification of evidence to only confirming evidence of the kitten being in the box.
Evidence for the converse also applies to the assertion.
The observation of the box with no kitten inside is not absence of evidence.
It is the presence of evidence.
Your claim of no evidence for "Is there a kitten in the box?" is false, if you observe inside the box.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, because, in your kitten example, the evidence is not absent.
Correcting your statement relative to your case, it says: "The presence of evidence is evidence for absence".
Examples of absence of evidence would be such as...a lid on the box making the contents unobservable; not even observing the box; or looking inside the box and being blind.
Incidentally, mentioning Sagan does not qualify as an appeal to authority, since you prompted it by your thin, arrogant little splash about how "in science" things are done this way or that.
You're over your head here, Snide.
You must have some basic inability to navigate language at this level of complexity.

"Evidence" as a word refers to something we discover or observe. It exists independently of our knowledge of it. "Evidence" itself is only a word. To talk about the existence of "evidence" only has meaning when you are talking about what the word refers to. In the case of the statement “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.”, both instances of "evidence" refer to different things. Both instances of "absence" refer to different things.

It wouldn't be as catchy to say "Ignorance of evidence is not evidence of absence." People latch on to phrases that have this kind of symmetry or poetry whether they are technically correct or not.

"Absence" without a qualifier means complete absence. It means nonexistence until you qualify some specific level of absence.

"Absence of evidence" means there is no evidence to find or discover or observe.

"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

A person has no choice but to interpret this. It is not an explicit statement. The first instance of "absence" refers to the first instance of "evidence". The first instance of "evidence" refers to whatever would support the presence of the object the second instance of "absence" refers to. The second instance of "evidence" refers to the "absence of evidence" string.

This will likely be the last bit of effort I spend on this, but who knows. Your cute little insults bring me back to earlier discussions.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188851 Dec 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
From Wiki:
"Synthesis refers to a combination of two or more entities that together form something new; alternately, it refers to the creating of something by artificial means."
What Venter did was artificially synthesize something, yes?
This whole debate started when ChrisM posted that humans have created life and she used Venter's experiment as her "proof".
It was laughed off as it should've been, because Venter didn't create anything, he simply used existing matter and rearranged it.
Correct.

It went from "created life", then "created DNA", then "synthesized DNA".

If we keep at them, Red, we might get the truth out of the rational skeptics yet.

Nothing was created or synthesized.

They copied, recorded, rearranged some portions, preserved some portions, and placed it back into an already living cell.

The difference in this and what was being done 25 years earlier is they altered the full length of a simple chromosome.

Thinking

Windsor, UK

#188852 Dec 1, 2013
Buck doesn't believe infinity exists yet he thinks his god has been around forever.
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You must have some basic inability to navigate language at this level of complexity.
"Evidence" as a word refers to something we discover or observe. It exists independently of our knowledge of it. "Evidence" itself is only a word. To talk about the existence of "evidence" only has meaning when you are talking about what the word refers to. In the case of the statement “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.”, both instances of "evidence" refer to different things. Both instances of "absence" refer to different things.
It wouldn't be as catchy to say "Ignorance of evidence is not evidence of absence." People latch on to phrases that have this kind of symmetry or poetry whether they are technically correct or not.
"Absence" without a qualifier means complete absence. It means nonexistence until you qualify some specific level of absence.
"Absence of evidence" means there is no evidence to find or discover or observe.
"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."
A person has no choice but to interpret this. It is not an explicit statement. The first instance of "absence" refers to the first instance of "evidence". The first instance of "evidence" refers to whatever would support the presence of the object the second instance of "absence" refers to. The second instance of "evidence" refers to the "absence of evidence" string.
This will likely be the last bit of effort I spend on this, but who knows. Your cute little insults bring me back to earlier discussions.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188853 Dec 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct.
It went from "created life", then "created DNA", then "synthesized DNA".
If we keep at them, Red, we might get the truth out of the rational skeptics yet.
Nothing was created or synthesized.
They copied, recorded, rearranged some portions, preserved some portions, and placed it back into an already living cell.
The difference in this and what was being done 25 years earlier is they altered the full length of a simple chromosome.
I don't know if they'll ever relent, Bucko.

I created cinnamon rolls yesterday morning.

From "scratch".

Lol

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#188854 Dec 1, 2013
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
EMF detector / video and digital recording devices / thermal imaging devices.
Let's just start with this question bl.....How much evidence is required to make something factual?
And you use James Randy for a reference?
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>And what evidence do you have that show things from the spirit realm generate electromagnetic fields? Or somehow can be detected via electromagnetic fields? EMF devises detect electromagnetic fields, these fields are generated by everyday household or industrial appliances. So how do you tell the difference between a ghost and a dishwasher?
I think you are smart and intelligent enough to go research the process of and engineering behind the detectors. Even researching the physics property of EMF.

Not all things produce an EMF field - that is basic Science.

Not into Science as much as you think you are, huh?

Anyways, that wasn't the point. I could care less if you understand those devices or not. I was asking about how much evidence is needed to make something a fact. That is the question you will need to answer first.

Physics and quantum physics are the answers for what exactly makes an EMF happen. You can start in those genres for other answers.
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>For something to be factual it must be observable, and observable by the strictest of scientific means, it must be tested for repeatability, and able to be examined form every angle, it must then pass peer review in reputable scientific journals, and then be subjected to numerous attempts at falsification.
I've observed many incidences that others have brought forth.

How much is required? That is all bl.....give me the criteria for the amount of facts required for something to be accepted as true.

.....and please stop trying to avoid the question. Honesty is all I ask of you as you would of me.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#188855 Dec 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Disagree.
I've already explained why what Venter did is rightly called the synthesis of DNA. Your comment is typical: a bare, unsupported, unexplained and unjustified assertion.
It's typical of you to prefer to attempt to argue than to attempt to elucidate. As I said, you are not here to exchange ideas or explore truth, but to fight. As a result, it takes a half dozen posts or more to communicate what collocutors engaging cooperatively in dialectic will typically accomplish in one or two.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...

Not exactly from scratch according to that.

It appears so far they can play with modifying existing code, which evolution does, but not boot up a "new" form of life, a new machine. The existing code is required to work with the existing environment, the composition of the cell itself.

It's all machinery. Life as we know it is just carbon based.

They already produce robots and AI much more intelligent and functional than a bacteria. They can also be designed, there is that word again, to make copies of themselves. Robots building robots. Such things tend to be rather huge at the present.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#188856 Dec 1, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You must have some basic inability to navigate language at this level of complexity.
"Evidence" as a word refers to something we discover or observe. It exists independently of our knowledge of it. "Evidence" itself is only a word. To talk about the existence of "evidence" only has meaning when you are talking about what the word refers to. In the case of the statement “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.”, both instances of "evidence" refer to different things. Both instances of "absence" refer to different things.
It wouldn't be as catchy to say "Ignorance of evidence is not evidence of absence." People latch on to phrases that have this kind of symmetry or poetry whether they are technically correct or not.
"Absence" without a qualifier means complete absence. It means nonexistence until you qualify some specific level of absence.
"Absence of evidence" means there is no evidence to find or discover or observe.
"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."
A person has no choice but to interpret this. It is not an explicit statement. The first instance of "absence" refers to the first instance of "evidence". The first instance of "evidence" refers to whatever would support the presence of the object the second instance of "absence" refers to. The second instance of "evidence" refers to the "absence of evidence" string.
This will likely be the last bit of effort I spend on this, but who knows. Your cute little insults bring me back to earlier discussions.
I feel guilty for making you look stupid.

So I'll correct you here without insulting you.

I. No, evidence does not exist independently of our knowledge of it, in terms of what knowledge is available.

Evidence is, by definition, available.

If there is no knowledge of a particular incidence, there is no evidence.

Absence of such evidence for X is not evidence of X being absent, it is only a lack of evidence for X being present.
==========

Snide: "In the case of the statement “Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.”, both instances of "evidence" refer to different things."

No, they do not. "Absence" refers to the kitten in the box.

"Evidence" refers to the kitten being in the box.

If you, as you say, observe the box and it is empty, that is evidence. But you claim it isn't.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#188857 Dec 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct.
It went from "created life", then "created DNA", then "synthesized DNA".
If we keep at them, Red, we might get the truth out of the rational skeptics yet.
Nothing was created or synthesized.
They copied, recorded, rearranged some portions, preserved some portions, and placed it back into an already living cell.
The difference in this and what was being done 25 years earlier is they altered the full length of a simple chromosome.
It's been done dumbass, completely artificial dna.

http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/group-leaders/h...

http://www.nature.com/news/enzymes-grow-artif...

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#188858 Dec 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
OMFG! You partially explained yourself. Now there is a glimmer of hope for discussion rather than combat.
Please explain why you do you not consider that synthesis? Here are two definitions that what Venter's team did satisfies:
synthesis
1. the combination of components or elements to form a connected whole.
2. the production of chemical compounds by reaction from simpler materials.
Nice description of organic life.

What did the synthesizing?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188859 Dec 1, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Speaking of imagining, don't forget Wittgenstein:“Whatever cannot be shown to correspond to some observable reality, cannot be meaningfully spoken about.” What makes you think that you are discussing anything at all when you use the word "deity"? There are religious words that refer to real things, like church, bible, scripture, and prayer. And then there are the ones that refer to nothing at all when used in the literal (non-metaphorical) religious sense, like holy, blessed, divine, sacred, soul, god, angel, heaven, hell, salvation, grace, miracle, blasphemy, and sin - religious concepts that refer to imagined qualities and substances that cannot be identified in the world any more than leprechauns.
Buck Crick wrote:
Like when you use "infinity"? This means we can't use "atheism, atheist, agonostic". And out goes words like "believe". "suspect". "doubt". Can't use "colorful", unless we are talking about actual pigments. Can't use "rich". Can't use "attractive", since no known force literally attracts one person to another more than others. Reality is not limited by language, and vice versa. The idea is intellectual quackery.
Disagree.

Each of those words corresponds to things that actually exist. Words do not have to be the names of material objects to refer to reality. They can be abstractions like processes (freezing), relationships (inside), and qualities (red).

Here's a useful concept: we don't see the world immediately, but only the imported sensa delivered to our consciousness apparatus. It is these phenomena of consciousness modified by our understanding of what they represent that we experience most directly.

This understanding is a map of sorts drawn from a lifetime of experience which we use to chart our course as we navigate through life.

Life a literal road map, it contains features that correspond to features outside of our head the way a squiggle on a road map corresponds to a road. If the map is accurate, we can make intelligent choices and arrive at our intended destination.

The things we don't know are like roads that exist but are not shown on the map. And false beliefs are like map lines that correspond to no road. These are Type I and Type II errors. From Wiki:

"A type I error (or error of the first kind) is ... a false positive ... Examples of type I errors include a test that shows a patient to have a disease when in fact the patient does not have the disease, or an experiment indicating that a medical treatment should cure a disease when in fact it does not.

"A type II error (or error of the second kind) is ... a false negative. Examples of type II errors would be a blood test failing to detect the disease it was designed to detect, in a patient who really has the disease; or a clinical trial of a medical treatment failing to show that the treatment works when really it does."

The missing road on our map is the false negative, and the false positive is the line on the map with no correlate in reality.

Obviously, both types of errors predispose us to making mistakes - not arriving at our destination. If your map shows angry god judging sin when no such thing exists outside of your head, you have committed a Type I error - a false positive - and will chart an inefficient course, possibly giving your childrens' inheritance away to charlatan priests.

Contrarily, unexplained phenomena need explaining. They are like rolling over asphalt in a place where out map shows that no road exists - Type II errors, or false negatives.

This is why it behooves us to try to fit our maps to external reality. We need to fit our beliefs to evidence. To the extent that it is possible, each road drawn on our map needs to correspond to something real out there, and each experience needs to be accounted for on the map.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#188860 Dec 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
THE MYTH OF THE RANDI PRIZE
Richar Dawkins to James Amazing Randi:
"About the million dollar prize, I would be worried if I were you because of the fact that we have perinormal possibilities. I mean, what if somebody - what if there really is a perinormal phenomenon which is then embraced within science and will become normal, but at present is classified conventionally as paranormal?"
Suitbert Ertel:
"Randi and those who offer a large monetary prize for psi effect demonstrations are entitled to demand unachievable psi effects. It's their money and they must be careful not to lose it. Everybody must admit that this is reasonable economically. But careful reasoning about money and property is quite a different thing than careful scientific reasoning."
Dr Dean Radin was blunt in his assessment:
"This 'challenge' was like Evel Knievel's steam-powered motorcycle jump over the Snake River Canyon: A great stunt, accompanied by pomp and bluster, but ultimately irrelevant."
Dr. Gary Schwartz:
"James Randi has a history of engaging in the twisting of the truth...Randi's recommendation of Dr. Krippner was certainly acceptable to me. However, when I contacted Dr. Krippner directly to see if Mr. Randi’s statement about him serving on the panel was correct, Dr. Krippner was concerned. Dr. Krippner explained that he had previously emailed Mr. Randi stating that he would not agree to serve on such a committee. The truth is, Dr. Krippner was not willing to serve on the panel, and he made this clear to Mr. Randi"
Carina Landin, went through a 3 year process just to reach the preliminary test, and after failing her test (achieving above chance results, but not to a significant level) found that her protocol had not been adhered to...and so is now waiting to be retested.
Interesting story, huh?

As I have stated in the past. Science will discover those 'paranormal' and 'supernatural' worlds we cannot. Man will experience them, using Science to discover them.

We see history being written everyday. Those who make conclusions now, and only to find that they will change their answer again, are probably dismayed and frustrated.

It's like an old friend I knew. He spoke - "I'll never used iPods and other gadgets of tech. Shoot - he owned one of those 1990s big 50"+ big screen TVs that look like a projection screen of sorts.....yeah you know......

Funny - he changed when he discovered the iPod, laptops, and flat screen LCD TVs.

Change - the only thing that stays the same.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#188861 Dec 1, 2013
Khatru wrote:
Great post! If it's OK with you I'd like to quote/ refer to this every now and then.
Thanks. Anything that you see and like is yours to share wherever you find it appropriate.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#188862 Dec 1, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You are asserting that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
That would include everything that doesn't have evidence now or ever in human history.
Are you sure you wanna stick to that?
Evidence is something to be discovered.

Can you discover something that existed long before you discovered it?

There's a difference between the definition of evidence, and whatever the word "evidence" refers to in use.

"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

Both uses of "evidence" here are references to data. Data exists independently of our knowledge of it.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#188863 Dec 1, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
THE MYTH OF THE RANDI PRIZE
"In the case of Pavel Ziborov he had gotten all the way through the process, having agreed to 100 repetitions within the eight hour time limit only to have Randi come back and limit his challenge to 20 repetitions, thereby violating his own protocol and ensuring that nothing less than near total perfection could pass the challenge. No explanation was given for this change which Mr. Ziborov wisely refused. On the JREF site it is simply noted that the challenger had refused to accept the protocol."
"Randi has also claimed that once the parameters are set, neither he nor anyone else can change them, yet it was done here. How is that? Simple. Randi NEVER accepted the application. Mr. Ziborov was going back and forth with JREF for almost two years and in that time he was never formally declared an applicant. It appears that this a loophole in the process that has been exploited to prevent legal challenges to his methods. If nothing is signed, there is no contract and the person applying has no legal means to force a reasonable challenge."
hmmmmm....seems there is always a qualifier to the program, huh?

Just like - why NOT to believe in a religion. There seems to always be a qualifier.

It is quite enlightening to know that believers and non-believers alike, hold in agreement the same thing to maintain their perception of themselves - they both require qualifiers - ones that causes one to choose what to believe.

In fact - neither are being honest - because neither truly knows.

An Atheist uses an external force to make a determination of "the facts" - Science. To choose to use or not to use Science is a choice made by one's Self.

A religious apologist also uses an external 'force' to believe as they do - the Bible.

Honest dictates that neither of these people truly know the outcome, thus "faith" is attained by one's Self through learning.

Cheers.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188864 Dec 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
It's been done dumbass, completely artificial dna.
http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/group-leaders/h...
This one tells you what their goals are, not that they've done anything.

"Our aims are the generation of artificial genetic systems and the synthesis and evolution of novel, DNA-like polymers for applications in nanotechnology and material science."
"...the alternative molecules could help others to develop..."

Again, they simply used existing materials and rearranged them, nothing was created.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#188865 Dec 1, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
Evidence is something to be discovered.
Can you discover something that existed long before you discovered it?
There's a difference between the definition of evidence, and whatever the word "evidence" refers to in use.
"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."
Both uses of "evidence" here are references to data. Data exists independently of our knowledge of it.
Then there's no way to prove the age of the universe.

No one was there to document the data.

Now what ever will we do?

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Buck Crick 841,082
Tamil vs Kannada. Which one is the oldest langu... (Oct '12) 6 min The swamiji 1,461
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 27 min Ruby88 53,357
Why do we live life when we have to die anyway? (Jul '13) 34 min wiseman34 192
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 44 min Tony17 100,176
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr 2all 591,232
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr Truths 4,718
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr Truths 612,247
More from around the web