Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256542 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.

Jim

Cambridge, UK

#201652 Jan 10, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck is the prime candidate to become the poster child for the Dunning / Kruger Effect.
OCD + low intelligence usually results in religion or conspiracy theories.(Religion is just a big conspiracy theory anyway)

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201653 Jan 11, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Your camp refuses to recognize the distinction between ID and creationists.
.

The differences aren't important. The similarities are. You would agree that what we consider important is for us to judge, wouldn't you?
lightbeamrider wrote:
Critics glum the two together for propaganda purposes
.

Why is it propaganda to yoke the two? Does one demean the other?

Besides, I'm afraid that the genie's out of the bottle on this issue. Have you read the Wedge Document? It explains what the purpose of the ID movement is, which is to effect a pro-Christian social and political agenda, not to discover the hidden secrets of the physical universe. That's why it's considered pseudoscience - something being offered as science that is not science. Science has no political or social agenda.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201654 Jan 11, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Opposition groups always lie for propaganda purposes. Lie, vilify, sarcasm, and vitriol..
Does that include the church?
lightbeamrider wrote:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
----------
6. Is intelligent design based on the Bible? No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Plato and Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world.
7. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism? No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? It is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Center Director Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Center Associate Director's piece " Intelligent Design and
----------
What part of this are you not understanding?
It's all easily understood. It's simply irrelevant.

"Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism?"

I'm afraid that the movement did the conflating for us. Do you know what cdesign proponentsists are? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponen...

They're the missing link between creationists and design proponents - the transitional form.

One of the consequences of a lifetime habit of faith based thinking is the idea that you can just decide what you want to be true and insist on it. That may be effective with the faithful, but you can see how ineffective it is with evidence based thinkers. We've seen the evidence that links ID to creationsism in the minds of authors of the of the ID materials themselves, and we think they're misrepresenting their intent now.

You said it yourself: "Opposition groups always lie for propaganda purposes."

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201655 Jan 11, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
The universe however IS proving itself to be infinite, and every attempt to measure it ..fails.
Impossible or not is only a human concept, reality is what proves it.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/174427-ast...
Interesting. Thanks.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201656 Jan 11, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
I give up. If repeated instances of Jefferson spending tax money for the stated purpose of evangelizing, then having the money put to use for evangelizing is not supportive of his intent to evangelize, then, yes, we have exhausted it.
The problem is that Barton claimed that, "Jefferson put federal funds to pay for missionaries to go evangelize the Indians and gave federal funds so that after they were converted we’d build them a church in which they could worship" and there is not only no supporting evidence that Jefferson had any interest in evangelizing, there is evidence to the contrary that his purpose was otherwise. Throckmorton brought this to our attention as part of his argument that Barton was mischaracterizing Jefferson's intent, which is Barton's greater issue: the intent of the Founders.

You haven't rebutted that. You never provided evidence that Jefferson was interested in promoting religion.

==========

You have been referring to the treatment of Barton as a smear campaign. What do you have to say about all of this from the Wiki on Barton at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_%28... ? Is it all nothing more than people smearing Barton, or could there be a real issue here:

"Barton collects early American documents, and his official biography describes him as "an expert in historical and constitutional issues". Barton holds no formal credentials in history or law, and scholars dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism, "pseudoscholarship" and spreading "outright falsehoods". According to the New York Times, "many professional historians dismiss Mr. Barton, whose academic degree is in Christian Education from Oral Roberts University, as a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible." Barton's 2012 book The Jefferson Lies was voted "the least credible history book in print" by the users of the History News Network website. The book's publisher, the Christian publishing house Thomas Nelson, disavowed the book and withdrew it from sale. A senior executive said that Thomas Nelson could not stand by the book because "basic truths just were not there."

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#201657 Jan 11, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Buck is practising the christian form of taqiyya.
<quoted text>
Good one. LOL

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#201658 Jan 11, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, the story definitely does not shed a good light on some Christians. And what is really ironic is that these are the same sort of Christians that are always whining about how oppressed they are. And yet they don't have a tolerant bone in their body.
That's for sure. They just like to play the victim.

At least I escaped that church when I was old enough.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201659 Jan 11, 2014
Hey Buckeroo!

Stand 5 feet from a wall. Walk half way to the wall, then walk half way to the wall, then walk half way to the wall, etc.

How many iterations before you reach the wall ?

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201660 Jan 11, 2014
The Supreme Court’s conclusion in 1940 that the Free Exercise Clause was made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

End of discussion.

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#201661 Jan 11, 2014
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. didn't the 1st Amendment resolve the issue of a national religion? Wasn't that the primary purpose ??..
.. some posters claim the U.S. is a Christian nation. If that's true, why didn't our forefathers establish Christianity as the national religion ??..
.. in the 17th Century, Boston made it a crime to observe Christmas. A balance had to be struck ..
.. mandatory school prayer is the endorsement and promotion of a supernatural force ..
.. can you address the meaning of the 10 Commandments posted in front of a courthouse without mentioning the presumable source ??..
.. nativity scenes in front of a public building? Again, does that not endorse and promote a specific religion ??..
.. we're free to say prayers before each meal, teach our children the meaning of the 10 Commandments and string lights during Christmas time. These rights belong to you as an individual, not the society ..
.. if some teaching of Mohammad or Buddha was inscribed on a tablet and placed in front of a county courthouse, would you take exception ??..
.. your 'hands-off' philosophy is correct and must be ascribed to all belief or unbelief systems. Any government endorsement or promotion would violate your very premise ..
And your First Amendment is widely copied. In our Constitution, the part that guarantees religious freedom is Section 116. It's almost a direct quote.

'The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.'
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201663 Jan 11, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
http://www.viewzone.com/weedfacts/weedfacts.h...
How marijuana can burn your brain out. And has some of our "secular humanist" contributors to this forum that should have known better.
Except that those people are running circles around you.
Dave Nelson wrote:
As the twig is bent, the tree is inclined. Youth to adult. And drugs shape the brain to come. Drugs have stolen an entire generation of youth from society and pointed them down a path of delusion. I am talking my generation that grew up in the 60's and 70's. They were sent into la la land, they have bred, became politicians and voters, and they have changed the natural course of human events. It only got worse after they bred.
Your faith that pot is harmful may be strong, but your argument and evidence are weak. I have all of the evidence I need from life experience, and it contradicts you.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201664 Jan 11, 2014
Jim wrote:
The clue in the maths problem is *any* number n.
That's right buck *any*- including infinity.
Just to be clear, infinity is not a number.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201665 Jan 11, 2014
Dave Nelson wrote:
Watch any Cheech and Chong movie, or any other drug cult movie. It is cool to accept freaky behavior, man. Drugs are soporifics that allow things you would never ever allow to enter your world otherwise.
Have another cigarette, Dave.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201666 Jan 11, 2014
Jim wrote:
<quoted text>
He did maths, but much like his god, the irrational numbers course simply didn't exist at his college.
Actually, I would think a course including the rational numbers would be banned and only irrational numbers would be studied.

I suspect Buck got pretty cut up by square roots. They have very sharp edges.
Eagle 12

Edwardsville, IL

#201667 Jan 11, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
Hey Buckeroo!
Stand 5 feet from a wall. Walk half way to the wall, then walk half way to the wall, then walk half way to the wall, etc.
How many iterations before you reach the wall ?
Do you measure and mark the floor with chalk first?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201668 Jan 11, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Does that include the church?
<quoted text>
It's all easily understood. It's simply irrelevant.
"Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism?"
I'm afraid that the movement did the conflating for us. Do you know what cdesign proponentsists are? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponen...
They're the missing link between creationists and design proponents - the transitional form.
One of the consequences of a lifetime habit of faith based thinking is the idea that you can just decide what you want to be true and insist on it. That may be effective with the faithful, but you can see how ineffective it is with evidence based thinkers. We've seen the evidence that links ID to creationsism in the minds of authors of the of the ID materials themselves, and we think they're misrepresenting their intent now.
You said it yourself: "Opposition groups always lie for propaganda purposes."
Gotta love "cdesign proponentists".

Quite true. The "text book" Of Pandas and People was originally a creationist text book. Then along came the SCOTUS decision which barred creationism from the classroom. So the Discovery Institute ran it through a word processor and changed all the "creationism" to "intelligent design" and "creator" to "designer".

But their word processor screwed up and left one mis-correction that came out "cdesign proponentists", where "design proponent" got stuck in the middle of "creationists".

A careful study of the various editions of Of Pandas and People shows this.

And it is a clear indication that ID really is creationism.

Thanx for bringing this up.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#201669 Jan 11, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Just to be clear, infinity is not a number.
Correct!

Buck can only do ChristMath.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#201670 Jan 11, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Can you demonstrate life from non-life in any way?
Why? That's not your standard for belief.

Isn't it interesting that the principle resistance to the idea of abiogenesis comes from faith based thinkers, that evidence based thinkers are overwhelmingly convinced that abiogenesis probably occurred, and that faith based thinkers are continually asking for evidence for abiogenesis that they have no use or respect for.

“True Blue”

Since: Jun 13

New Holland

#201671 Jan 11, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
If a courthouse had "Do as thou wilt." on the wall, the Christers would argue the exact opposite.
They would if they knew exactly where it came from!

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
http://www.thelema101.com/intro

Thelema, est by Aleister Crowley, is regarded as a religion. IMO it's as valid as any other.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#201672 Jan 11, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
That's for sure. They just like to play the victim.
At least I escaped that church when I was old enough.
My falling out with the Southern Baptist Church began when I was about 15 or 16. By the time I was 18, it was complete.

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) 1 min trifecta1 973,659
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 4 min WasteWater 2,566
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 7 min here 63,375
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 21 min LAWEST100 618,751
sexy girl want to Skype fun Skype: dilinazi20 (Apr '15) 47 min Allauddin khan 53
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 54 min Just Think 653,676
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Pegasus 281,841
More from around the web