Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 255314 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: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#197205 Dec 30, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
It's surreal.
In Australia, are the smarter kids in schools the ones who get made fun of? It's like that.
Sometimes but I have observed that since BBT, nerds are getting kinda cool, glbt kids still get teased a bit though, mainly in private religious schools, where bullying in general is far more rampant.

I was a nerd but also a tomboy jock with three younger brothers, I only ever got teased once in each school.

Nuns were mean though, they hit me with sticks for asking questions, then I'd get expelled, I may have reacted unfavorably at being hit with a stick, that was in Sth America though, not Oz.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#197206 Dec 30, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
My mom got me a 3 pack of shirts made in Pakistan for Christmas.
They have a bunch of pockets all the way around the mid section that would be perfect for Slim Jims or M&M minis tubes.
"They shall weave their bandoleros into ponchos." - Juan 3:27

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#197207 Dec 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
What have you learned from [Dave Nelson], and how has it enriched your understanding of reality?
Buck Crick wrote:
A confirmation, more or less, of properties I already suspected. Like the recapitulation in all of nature, even in cosmogenesis, of the smallest events in atoms and molecules.
Would you care to elaborate?

And didn't you say that Nelson understood physics better than Polymath? Your words were, "Dave has a better understanding of physics than anyone on this thread. That includes me and Polymath. Polymath's type have more rote knowledge. But they don't understand what they know"

Is the recapitulation thing what you meant? It must be, It was your first and only example of Nelson physics, which isn't really physics at all, and demonstrates zero knowledge of the subject.

The physics of the cosmos is completely different from the physics of an atom, and has been since the universe exceeded the size of an atom..I can hardly begin to list the differences, but a few would be that subatomic particles are characterized by wave-particle duality, uncertainty/indeterminacy, are described probabilistically, and experience almost no gravitational effects. The cosmos considered as a whole is expanding, deterministic, and dominated by gravity. It's starry and galactic denizens are described by deterministic mathematics.

Please do elaborate. Where is the recapitulaltion that Dreamin' Dave told you about in his science poetry?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I read somewhere that a cell in the human body stores only enough nutrients to live for 24 hours. "Give us this day our daily bread" Synchronicity.
What does that have to do with this discussion? Weren't you defending the quality of Nelson's physics?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#197208 Dec 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
Every new discovery in biology is in conflict with mainstream biology, because the mainstream model does not include the new discovery. You can parse that anyway you like as far as degree of conflict, but it is true.
Disagree, unless by conflict you mean any form of debate.

I can name many new discoveries in biology that were not in conflict with older understanding, where conflict implies more than just differing opinions. In fact, I can't think of one that was right now. Can you? New discoveries merely amplify older knowledge. When Gould postulated punctuated equilibrium, he didn't contradict anything. The default position had been a smooth, continuous evolution in accordance with Occam's Razor, until new data surfaced (literally!) suggesting otherwise. With new observations to account for, the theory was modified accordingly.

Conflict is like the schism between mainstream science and ID. It is an ideological battle that goes to the roots of the philosophy of science. Debates like the one between Big Bang cosmologists and Steady State cosmologists are healthy science, not conflicts in any meaningful sense of the word.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#197209 Dec 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
The ID people have no discoveries? Only a philosphy? Never borne fruit? Hiding said the same thing. I forced her to capitulate by citing evidence.
If you would like me to start, I can begin here: First question - Is this article by ID scientists published in "Philosophy" or in "Integrative Zoology"? "Active bleb formation is abated in Lytechinus variegatus red spherule coelomocytes after disruption of acto-myosin contractility"
Is "acto-myosin contractility" a hot topic among philosophers? I haven't seen it.
What does that have to do with intelligent design? I'm not implying that ID scientists can't also do mainstream science consistent with methodological and philosophical materialism. I just don't include those contributions part of ID,which I consider pseudoscience.
Buck Crick wrote:
Second question. Was this article by ID scientists published in a philosophy journal, or in "Biochemistry"? And does it intimate any potential "bearing fruit" at all? Biochemistry.44(18):6877-88. Framework model for DNA Polymerases. "As an example application, we use the general framework ideas to build a detailed model for the HIV reverse transcriptase that is consistent with existing data, and predicts force-velocity curves and stepping-statistics histograms that can be directly compared to experiment." ....You get the sense of where this is going.
Same criticism. Where is the intelligent design aspect of that?

Is your argument with me going to be about the fact that I said "the ID people have no discoveries - just a philosophy that is antithetical to naturalistic science, and which has never borne fruit" rather than specifying that they have no discoveries supporting a claim for intelligent design? If your point is the trivial one that ID scientists are also capable of doing mainstream science, I agree.

Let me rephrase my claim: The ID scientists have no discoveries supporting intelligent design.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#197210 Dec 30, 2013
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You skipped 1. In 2, matter is called matter, not energy. Try again.
Why? I made my points the first time.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#197211 Dec 30, 2013
River Tam wrote:
I think Buck's comment was tongue in cheek. We should make him pull himself up by his bootstraps and toe the line before we string him up. Crap, I just went all Tide while posting as River Tam.
Catcher1 wrote:
RR is a heel.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
And a little insolent at times.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Respect is earned, not given.
You missed the pun. Again. Perhaps you hadn't noticed that we cobbled together a series of shoe puns. Shall I explain mine to you? It was the last of the upper quoted comments.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#197212 Dec 30, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I don't suppose you and IANS consider either shows to be real news....
Please don't say it....
I get a fair amount of news from both Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, and most of the rest from my wife, who gets it from the Internet and either tells me about it or posts it to Facebook, which results in an email notification. Where else? The litany of murders, child abductions, temperature forecasts, and sports results that pass for news in shows called the news?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#197213 Dec 30, 2013
River Tam wrote:
That's what I mean. My stories can only go so far. I'm 20.
There are stories to be listened to here but only if they're told.
It's day after day of meaningless bullshit. Hitler was an atheist, NO, Hitler was a Christian. Stalin was an atheist, NO...well yes but Stalin killed for Communism.
You know more about me than some of my (physically) closest friends.
I want somebody, other than me, to give me a glimpse of personality.
Why Communism Failed.

http://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2013/04/...

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#197214 Dec 30, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Why Communism Failed.
http://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2013/04/...
lol

I'm going to go log into my Word Press account and write something, then come back here and post you a link to it.

Don't get all giddy about it, probably won't happen 'til next year.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#197215 Dec 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
That's what makes me an agnostic atheist.
Buck Crick wrote:
And I am a married bachelor. If we assume a bachelor is the default position of rationality, and I am married, I can just say I am a married bachelor, because bachelor doesn't mean unmarried any more. It now just means ambivalence toward marriage.
Neat, huh?
Not analogous. Married and bachelor are mutually exclusive. Bachelor implies unmarried

I can be both an unbeliever and unknowing at the same time. In fact, if i only claim belief or unbelief rather than certain knowledge, I am implying that uncertainty. Rather than being mutually exclusive, the terms are closer to redundant.

You probably know what an oxymoron is - a pair of contradictory terms yoked together in a phrase such as "pretty ugly" and "awfully nice". Are you familiar with pleonasms? They're the opposite - a pair of redundant terms, like "new beginning" and "end result."

"Ear piercings while you wait"

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#197217 Dec 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're confusing belief and (certain) knowledge. A belief is partial knowledge that is recognized as such. We don't generally use the word "believe" or "belief" when we are certain, nor do we call certainty "speculation."
To my recollection, you haven't answered me why you fight this battle so tenaciously. It can't be to change minds - to get unbelievers to adopt your preferred usage. By now you must realize that that isn't going to happen. Perhaps you are trying to recruit believers,although I don't see any resisting you.
All unbelievers reject all god claims. Most of us do not positively assert that gods cannot or do not exist for the same reason that we do not claim that leprechauns are impossible. You are correct that going from "no reason to believe" to "can be proven untrue" is a tiny leap of faith, and that is most proper to use the language of uncertainty, such as there are probably no gods. This is the position that many if not most of us unbelievers take, and we choose to call ourselves atheists. You're not going to change that.
In fact,by arguing the case you argue, you give atheists like me the opportunity to argue to the atheists who would make the positive claim of knowledge why they should modify their language to reflect philosophical or intellectual uncertainty, which you may recall was defined as an understanding that doubt exists where none is experienced psychologically. I have no nagging doubts about leprechauns of gods, but I can understand the limits of knowledge and acknowledge the miniscule degree of uncertainty that remains when something cannot be disproven. Russell's teapot is also in this category.
You must find some value in fighting this fight at the cost of not only not making any inroads with unbelievers, but allowing us to educate one another about the strength and validity of taking the agnostic atheist position, and limiting claims of certainty to the specific gods that are logically impossible - the "married bachelor" type of god.
Can you say why you fight this fight?
We disposed of the leprechaun and teapot analogies. They are fallacious.

One reason I wage this battle is to put atheists on the spot. They have the choice of declaring what they really believe, or being dishonest about it. Most choose the dishonest route. They will not admit their belief, while making it obvious - which is that gods do not exist. They will maintain that they have no belief. Yet call themselves atheists - which is a belief.

Perhaps you could explain this widespread willingness among atheists to be dishonest?

I won't give in to the ruse. The ruse I am speaking of is a huge one. It is a rhetorical sleight of hand to establish atheism as the intellectual, rational default position.

An advocate should win his case on merit. Not on word trickery.

By the way, there is still no such thing as an agnostic atheist or a married bachelor.



Since: May 10

Location hidden

#197218 Dec 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it possible to know that? Do they tell you?
Buck intuition.



Since: May 10

Location hidden

#197219 Dec 30, 2013
Atomic_G wrote:
I like how people that aren't atheist are still telling atheist who they are, and it's the same people.
Get A Life.
I like how atheists lie about who they are.

Get a conscience.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#197221 Dec 30, 2013
LuciFerr wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they don't.
He is speculating randomly I think.
I noticed you didn't deny it.

Not sure why, since you have lied about other things.

For instance, you believe no god exists, but claim you have no belief.
Jim

London, UK

#197222 Dec 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
We disposed of the leprechaun and teapot analogies. They are fallacious.
One reason I wage this battle is to put atheists on the spot. They have the choice of declaring what they really believe, or being dishonest about it. Most choose the dishonest route. They will not admit their belief, while making it obvious - which is that gods do not exist. They will maintain that they have no belief. Yet call themselves atheists - which is a belief.
Perhaps you could explain this widespread willingness among atheists to be dishonest?
I won't give in to the ruse. The ruse I am speaking of is a huge one. It is a rhetorical sleight of hand to establish atheism as the intellectual, rational default position.
An advocate should win his case on merit. Not on word trickery.
By the way, there is still no such thing as an agnostic atheist or a married bachelor.
Your Creationist Cult is finished Buck. There's nothing left of it. There is no way you can make anyone in here believe your stupid opinion that the earth is 3000 years old.

Go home and give up.
Jim

London, UK

#197223 Dec 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I like how atheists lie about who they are.
Get a conscience.
Buck, you're so full of sh*t you don't even realise it.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Jim

London, UK

#197224 Dec 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I noticed you didn't deny it.
Not sure why, since you have lied about other things.
For instance, you believe no god exists, but claim you have no belief.
Atheism is a simple disbelief in Religion and Religious liars like you buck.

Atheism is not a belief, it is a conclusion based on scientific evidence (reality) and lack of evidence from religion (self-important delusions and hallucinations).
Jim

London, UK

#197225 Dec 30, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck intuition.
Still no evidence of god, your intuition isn't worth sh*t.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#197226 Dec 30, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You're confusing belief and (certain) knowledge. A belief is partial knowledge that is recognized as such. We don't generally use the word "believe" or "belief" when we are certain, nor do we call certainty "speculation."
To my recollection, you haven't answered me why you fight this battle so tenaciously. It can't be to change minds - to get unbelievers to adopt your preferred usage. By now you must realize that that isn't going to happen. Perhaps you are trying to recruit believers,although I don't see any resisting you.
All unbelievers reject all god claims. Most of us do not positively assert that gods cannot or do not exist for the same reason that we do not claim that leprechauns are impossible. You are correct that going from "no reason to believe" to "can be proven untrue" is a tiny leap of faith, and that is most proper to use the language of uncertainty, such as there are probably no gods. This is the position that many if not most of us unbelievers take, and we choose to call ourselves atheists. You're not going to change that.
In fact,by arguing the case you argue, you give atheists like me the opportunity to argue to the atheists who would make the positive claim of knowledge why they should modify their language to reflect philosophical or intellectual uncertainty, which you may recall was defined as an understanding that doubt exists where none is experienced psychologically. I have no nagging doubts about leprechauns of gods, but I can understand the limits of knowledge and acknowledge the miniscule degree of uncertainty that remains when something cannot be disproven. Russell's teapot is also in this category.
You must find some value in fighting this fight at the cost of not only not making any inroads with unbelievers, but allowing us to educate one another about the strength and validity of taking the agnostic atheist position, and limiting claims of certainty to the specific gods that are logically impossible - the "married bachelor" type of god.
Can you say why you fight this fight?
I don't understand why you think philosophical or intellectual uncertainty is incompatible with a declaration of belief - either in theism or atheism.

Both are beliefs. It is perfectly consistent to believe no god exists (atheism) and yet have intellectual and philosophical uncertainty of the truth of it. Same with theism.

To my observation, that is the prevailing position of atheists. They don't know with certainty that no god exists, but they are convinced of the proposition that none does.

That position is valid. But they will not admit to it. I think the reason is they prefer the false position of "no belief" because of the intellectual sold ground it provides.

Hence the ruse.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min scientia potentia... 38,524
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 3 min good true observa... 44,450
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min Anthony MN 641,836
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 20 min RiccardoFire 104,758
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 27 min good true observa... 618,439
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 43 min The Hangman 970,091
if Thunder lose game 7 Durant Westbrook need to... 55 min Doctor REALITY 1
More from around the web