Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258480 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.

IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#222753 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't matter. There is no constitutional barrier to any prayer in any public school.
You swerved into the truth - that there is court precedent.
But the court precedent is not based on the Constitution.
It's politically-based.
Which means we have no Constitution, as far as the courts are concerned.
See, weasel words. The Constitution is politically based, nitwit.

You dishonesty is palpable.

It is not political for a Christian to expect not to be exposed to Muslim prayer in a secular school. It is common sense, something not so common among you delusionists.

Have you read the study that proves climate change denial it's who don't directly profit from it are usually conspiracy nuts? This post of yours bolsters that study.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#222754 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Climate change" is only the term the enviro-nazis opted for after "global warming" because everyone discovered they were lying and there is no global warming.
With the new improved made-up term, they cannot be proven wrong because the climate is always changing.
The whole thing is a fucking hoax to steal your money. Word to the wise.
"Trickle down economics" always works. This is because it is not an economic policy, it is a natural law of economics.
It always works. Has never failed.
More paranoid nonsense. Trickle down has always failed.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#222755 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Couple of reasons.

I could no longer intellectually accept the story of inherited sin, hell, and being rescued from the imagined guilt of it at the expense of someone else. And I learned that the Bible was largely a product of the Roman Catholic Church.

From a more personal standpoint, when I was at my lowest point in life, Christians who I thought were my friends lined up to cast the first stone. And cast they did.

I was less to them than a total stranger. I would not treat my dog the way I was treated. If that's Jesus in them, I want no part of the man.
Good for you. Seriously.

Now, what value does ID present?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#222756 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>ID is the pursuit of valid science. It rises or falls on the science.

Nobody should be against that.

Incidentally, the largest creationist organizations vehemently oppose ID.
What value would ID have and what predictions would it make?
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#222757 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
ID is the pursuit of valid science. It rises or falls on the science.
Nobody should be against that.
Incidentally, the largest creationist organizations vehemently oppose ID.
ID is not science, it is an argument from ignorance in a shiny wrapper. Proponents always plug their personal god into it. Creationist organizations only oppose it because they see it as competition for the religious dollar. Silly Hick.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#222758 Apr 3, 2014
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>If you think the human body is a "great design" then YOU are the idiot :)
Unless you think cancers, deformities, disease, etc....is a GREAT design?
smh
We have design engineers who are very intelligent.

Do their designs exceed the human body? The human brain?

Learn about design constraints. You don't know what you're talking about.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#222759 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>"Climate change" is only the term the enviro-nazis opted for after "global warming" because everyone discovered they were lying and there is no global warming.

With the new improved made-up term, they cannot be proven wrong because the climate is always changing.

The whole thing is a fucking hoax to steal your money. Word to the wise.

"Trickle down economics" always works. This is because it is not an economic policy, it is a natural law of economics.

It always works. Has never failed.
http://m.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-econo...

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#222760 Apr 3, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>More paranoid nonsense. Trickle down has always failed.
If you think prosperity results from giving more to the government, you are free to give them everything you have.

Go ahead. Show us your faith.

I think it is more prosperous for money to be utilized in the private sector with its multiplier effect.

Ask a poor person to create a job for you.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#222761 Apr 3, 2014
IPSEC wrote:
<quoted text>ID is not science, it is an argument from ignorance in a shiny wrapper. Proponents always plug their personal god into it. Creationist organizations only oppose it because they see it as competition for the religious dollar. Silly Hick.
Totally wrong, Dumbass.

Creationist groups oppose it because it is not creationism - it does not require an interventionist god.

You oppose it because you don't know what it is, and because you are stupid.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#222762 Apr 3, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
Drought? It's raining here right now, and it's been a colder than normal winter.

Neither is evidence for anything.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#222763 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Climate change" is only the term the enviro-nazis opted for after "global warming" because everyone discovered they were lying and there is no global warming.
With the new improved made-up term, they cannot be proven wrong because the climate is always changing.
The whole thing is a fucking hoax to steal your money. Word to the wise.
"Trickle down economics" always works. This is because it is not an economic policy, it is a natural law of economics.
It always works. Has never failed.
Paranoia, big destroyer.

http://www.thebrokenwindow.net/papers/L/Lskye...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/oneliners.php
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#222764 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Sure it is. Just look at all the global warming.
Aerobatty wrote:
I have.
You should.
__________
Right. And don't forget the global cooling, too.
And the global status quo.
Science is always right, either way.
Sure.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predi...

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’– emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#222765 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Drought? It's raining here right now, and it's been a colder than normal winter.
Neither is evidence for anything.
The world extends apart her than your nose.
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#222766 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
We have design engineers who are very intelligent.
Do their designs exceed the human body? The human brain?
Learn about design constraints. You don't know what you're talking about.
There is no evidence of design of the body or brain.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#222767 Apr 3, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
What value would ID have and what predictions would it make?
It predicts that junk DNA is not really junk.

It was right. Darwinists were wrong. As indicated below:

Skeptic Magazine, 2006; Michael Shermer:

"We have to wonder why the Intelligent Designer added to our genome junk DNA, repeated copies of useless DNA, orphan genes, gene fragments, tandem repeats, and pseudo­genes, none of which are involved directly in the making of a human being. In fact, of the entire human genome, it appears that only a tiny percentage is actively involved in useful protein production. Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragment copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution." (Why Darwin Matters, pp. 74–75)

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#222768 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>Drought? It's raining here right now, and it's been a colder than normal winter.

Neither is evidence for anything.
Do you know the difference between weather and climate?
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#222769 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally wrong, Dumbass.
Creationist groups oppose it because it is not creationism - it does not require an interventionist god.
You oppose it because you don't know what it is, and because you are stupid.
Nope, they oppose it for monetary reasons. They don't want to lose tithers. It is absolutely just another form of creationism. cdesign propentionists, after all. Your ad hominem is as ignorant as your argument from ignorance. There is no science in ID when, at the end, you can plug in whatever god or teapot you want to as a designer. It is non-falsifiable and not predicative. It is as useless as your brain.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#222770 Apr 3, 2014
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Good for you. Seriously.
Now, what value does ID present?
A better understanding of the origins and evolution of all life.

Is that important?
IPSEC

Oglesby, TX

#222771 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think prosperity results from giving more to the government, you are free to give them everything you have.
Go ahead. Show us your faith.
I think it is more prosperous for money to be utilized in the private sector with its multiplier effect.
Ask a poor person to create a job for you.
So, more logical fallacies. Can you create a post without them? Show where I made any of the assertions you claim I made here. None of those things you assert are the opposite of trickle down which is demonstrably ineffective.

Getting money into the hands of the middle class stimulates the environment, but your "job creators" are ensuring that no longer happens by opposing every economic reform that made that possible.

You're living a lie, nitwit. Every assertion you make, on every topic on Topix, is without evidence.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#222773 Apr 3, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>A better understanding of the origins and evolution of all life.

Is that important?
If we're to assume that life was the work of an intelligent being and not a natural process, how would we research that?

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Nostrils Waxman 1,705,542
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 16 min Trojan 35,542
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 26 min Mothra 12,225
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr unborn lives matter 330,374
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) Feb 16 Imprtnrd 201,803
Conn's Appliances (Nov '07) Jan '18 Sweet 293
News Horsechief commits to Pacific (Mar '06) Jan '18 NicePhartts 8
More from around the web