Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

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. Full Story

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#221126 Mar 24, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm optimistic about the upcoming Star Wars trilogy.
You?
Not so much after the last Star Wars trilogy.
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#221127 Mar 24, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
How does "homosexual legislation" affect non-homosexuals?
The problem with the gay movement is they want our kids.

That’s their target and why they want gay marriage legalized. It’s all about the kids.

That’s why I love Pink Floyd’s song,“Another brick on the wall.”

“We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! teachers! leave the kids alone!
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! teacher! leave us kids alone!
All in all you're just a another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just a another brick in the wall.”
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#221128 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
But you expect everyone to believe you just because you said so. Sorry, but that isn't how skeptics work. Evidence...REAL evidence...is required.
And you expect everyone to believe you just because you said so?

I have plenty of evidence for myself. Sorry you've been left out in the rain.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#221129 Mar 24, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Well obviously, every claim made by every religion can't be true, and thus you've just demonstrated why faith only leads away from truth, not toward it.
Why can't some claims from some religions be true?

Or have you just ruled out every religious claim altogether?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#221130 Mar 24, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
Very.
True story....
I remember going to the theater to see SW for the first time in '77.
My whole heart sank when we saw the scroll come up and it said "Episode IV".
I said - "Really!!?? They are going to skip the first three parts? C'mon! Seriously!!??"
Then when it was revealed by GL that he intended to make this a 9-part series, it sort of gave me more anticipation knowing that this will be going on a while.
In truth - I've been waiting for the final six parts since 1977 - I've gotten three of them.....now I just have to wait for the remaining ones. I'm patient.
;o)
I just hope JJ Abrams doesn't put a non-Star Wars feeling to it.

He did a great job with the two Star Trek movies, he better not screw up my Star Wars!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221131 Mar 24, 2014
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
You disproved ID yourself in that post and either too stupid to realize it or to deceitful to admit it.
You know nothing and are nothing, just like all the religitards here.
God is all around you and all you can do is babble about your magic book.
God is not in your Bible, Buck.
I don't have a Bible.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#221132 Mar 24, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with the gay movement is they want our kids.
That’s their target and why they want gay marriage legalized. It’s all about the kids.
Right. Because we all know the legal recognition of heterosexual marriages convinces gay people to turn straight.

Or are you saying being gay is superior, and you are afraid everyone else is going to figure that out somehow?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#221133 Mar 24, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't some claims from some religions be true?
Or have you just ruled out every religious claim altogether?
I don't accept any religious claim unless it's backed up by objectively verifiable evidence. As of yet, I've not encountered any such religious claims. Have you?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#221134 Mar 24, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
And you expect everyone to believe you just because you said so?
Isn't that how religion works?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221135 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
And here we see Buck lying once again, ignoring the part where Behe admits his definition of science is different than the one used by scientists.
Wrong.

They were not even discussing a definition of "science".

They were discussing what constitutes a scientific theory.

And Behe DID NOT admit that his definition is different than the one used by scientists.

In fact, Behe said HIS definition is closer to the one used by scientists, than the one offered by the National Academy of Science.

And Behe was exactly right.

Now, Piss Brain, do you have any more confusion about Behe's statements I can clear up for you?

If you were not turd stupid, you could read them and know for yourself.

That is, if you were not also a proven liar.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221136 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Meyer???
Oh, Buck, you just keep on quoting crackpots. You are really good at it.
First, I didn't quote him.

Second, if I had, I would not have doctored the quotation like you did with Behe.

Third, you have no grounds to criticize Meyer, he being an accomplished scientist, and you being a fake math guy who gets caught telling lies on Topix.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221137 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I noticed that too. I was going to comment until I saw your post.
Behe...yeah, well, ID is science if you use a different definition of scientific theory.
That's not what he said. You lied again.

What you are too stupid to know is that Darwin's evolution theory would not fit the NAS definition of "scientific theory" in its early decades.

According to Behe, evolution qualified as a scientific theory. According to the NAS, it would not have.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221138 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
Buck claims that ID is a scientific theory, that it has a scientific framework.
And then he posts Behe's testimony where Behe says you need to redefine what a scientific theory is in order for ID to qualify.
ROFLMAO
You lied again.

Behe didn't say you need to redefine anything.

He pointed out, with numerous examples from scientific literature, that in practice, scientists do not use the definition provided by the NAS. And he pointed out, correctly, that the definition of scientific theory scientists use would include Intelligent Design.

Behe has been exactly right on every point you have challenged his statements on.

And you have been wrong, or lying, on every single point.

How do you like your drubbing, Dagwood?

Those ID guys are too smart for you. And far more honest.

“Nothing can stop, This Pony..”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#221139 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
God is not logical.** That Ceiling Cat created the universe is logical.
(**After all, if everything needs a creator, who created God?)
Maybe the ceiling cat creates gods? lol

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221140 Mar 24, 2014
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
See, you don't get it.
Buck says science is science and scientific theories are scientific theories and never the twain shall meet.
Are you trying to maintain the position that the definition of "science" is the same as the definition of a "scientific theory"?

I understand why, since it would help you out of the jamb you're in from lying about Michael Behe.

But nobody will buy your claim on this. Nobody.

You are saddled with the lie.

I'm talking about the lie where you claimed Behe admitted ID is not science.

Not the other lie where you changed his testimony from the trial transcript.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#221141 Mar 24, 2014
tricki wrote:
<quoted text>
Phantom2010 wrote:
Millions of Christians today in many countries don't have a bible because it's against the law. They had the gospel preached to them, they believed, God confirmed their belief with personal interaction whatever form that may be.
Do you have a LINK or a CITATION which PROVES the crazy and obviously false claim, above? No?
Interesting-- you lie about this, too...
and were martyred
before the new canon was available at all, to anyone
WHAT THE EFF?

Dude! You seriously need to learn how to use Topix-- your gobbledegook post above is so mixed up it's meaningless...

Seriously.

It's not that hard to be clear.

And no-- nobody was martyred because they didn't get to read the hideous buybull...

.. doofus.
Eagle 12

Troy, IL

#221142 Mar 24, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Because we all know the legal recognition of heterosexual marriages convinces gay people to turn straight.
Or are you saying being gay is superior, and you are afraid everyone else is going to figure that out somehow?
Please be coherent.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221143 Mar 24, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone is. Do you accept that Vishnu exists? How about Zeus?
No. But that doesn't make me, nor anyone else, an atheist.

An atheist is one who believes no god exists. Is that hard for you to grasp? Because it's really easy for other people.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#221144 Mar 24, 2014
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously. The universe necessarily had to have a beginning, but God is infinite because I say so. Why can't the universe be infinite too? We might have evidence that this iteration of the universe had a beginning, but that doesn't mean it's not infinite, and it certainly doesn't mean that Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Brahman, or Jesus did it.
Something did it.

Theories vary.

You would not be one to ask.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#221145 Mar 24, 2014
wilderide wrote:
I don't accept any religious claim unless it's backed up by objectively verifiable evidence. As of yet, I've not encountered any such religious claims. Have you?
Well, yes. It's said that God answers prayer, I've seen that happen.

Whether or not you've seen or if I can prove it to you is irrelevant to the fact that it happened.

There's no objectively verifiable evidence that you love your mom, we have to take your word on it.

There's no objectively verifiable evidence that you like gay sex, we just have to take your word on it.

Capsice?

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.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 25 min shinningelectr0n 1,189,812
Kecoughtan High teacher resigns after drug charges (Nov '07) 51 min KHS Alumni 69
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 1 hr IBdaMann 4,099
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 3 hr Trojan 29,057
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 hr CD is a fraud 308,906
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 3 hr Big D 201,361
Patsos tries to steam, not boil over (Nov '08) Thu stewart scott 4
More from around the web