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

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#232031 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But if your claim is correct that homosexual sex evolved for that reason, the other baboon would be a heterosexual one.
So my question remains: As a heterosexual, how would a baboon's dick up my ass relieve tension?
I can't speak from experience, but I am inclined to predict that such dick up my ass would CAUSE tension.
In turn, it would cause tension for the other baboon, as he experienced the various sensations of his head being ripped from his body.
I also fail to see how any of that fulfills the evolutionary purpose, as announced by Dawkins, of my genes to propagate themselves to the next generation.
In summary, the facts compel me to conclude you and those you cite are making shit up.
You're failing to get it here. Also, you're once again incorrectly referring to same sex sexual behavior as somehow reproductive.

Clearly you don't really care about understanding why same sex sexual behavior evolved. If you did, you wouldn't make up such a stupid scenario and then pretend you've accomplished something.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#232032 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Give it up.
Here's what really happened.
1. You gave some lame social science crap about why homosexual sex evolved.
2. I pointed out how that doesn't fit the predictions of the Darwinian theory, and that procreation, or propogation of genes is fundamental to the theory. I stated that some allege it is the only purpose of evolution.
3. You stated that no theorist makes that claim.
4. I proved they do, and provided examples.
5. Then you back-pedaled and changed your statement to denying "all behavior is about reproduction".
During the process, you also:
1. Refuse to answer whether rape is normal behavior of primates and humans, and
2. Refused to answer how your claim is true - that a baboon's dick up my ass would relieve tension for me.
Not only are you are soundly defeated, and apparently, very embarrassed. Your whole approach to science is reduced to trendy, arrogance-of-the-age, popular nonsense bull shit.
I consider that a fruitful day's work for me.
I give up - you can't be taught. This must be why you believe in ID.

1. I gave good hypotheses that have good evidence for them. You completely and utterly failed to understand them. It's kind of normal for you.
2. You are incorrect. They fit fine into the theory. Your understanding of the theory is poor.
3. Evolutionists do not argue that all behavior is about reproduction.
4. You did not prove anything and some of your examples were quote mined. That was cute.
5. I posted the conversation from the beginning, from your incorrect disagreement and subsequent changing the topic.
______

1. Yes. I'm not going to indulge your unusual comparison of violence to sexual behavior.
2. You are lying here. I told you that the theories do not cover cross-species sex.

I'm hardly defeated. You've shat all over the chess board, knocked over the pieces, and called yourself a winner.

That's totally cool. You have displayed your contempt for education and rational discussion yet again.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#232033 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Give it up.
Here's what really happened.
1. You gave some lame social science crap about why homosexual sex evolved.
2. I pointed out how that doesn't fit the predictions of the Darwinian theory, and that procreation, or propogation of genes is fundamental to the theory. I stated that some allege it is the only purpose of evolution.
3. You stated that no theorist makes that claim.
4. I proved they do, and provided examples.
5. Then you back-pedaled and changed your statement to denying "all behavior is about reproduction".
During the process, you also:
1. Refuse to answer whether rape is normal behavior of primates and humans, and
2. Refused to answer how your claim is true - that a baboon's dick up my ass would relieve tension for me.
Not only are you are soundly defeated, and apparently, very embarrassed. Your whole approach to science is reduced to trendy, arrogance-of-the-age, popular nonsense bull shit.
I consider that a fruitful day's work for me.
Darwinian theory?

Is that the theory where he said buck, buck, buck, buck, buck over and over again until hens flocked to him?

That cracks me up. My friend and I laughed like hyenas.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232034 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You're failing to get it here. Also, you're once again incorrectly referring to same sex sexual behavior as somehow reproductive.
No, I'm making the opposite claim.

Homosexual sex is not reproductive.

That's my point. Given Darwinian theory, and particularly Dawkins' take on it, it should have evolved to aid reproduction. That's why it does not fit.

Enter: your bull shit.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#232035 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But if your claim is correct that homosexual sex evolved for that reason, the other baboon would be a heterosexual one.
So my question remains: As a heterosexual, how would a baboon's dick up my ass relieve tension?
I can't speak from experience, but I am inclined to predict that such dick up my ass would CAUSE tension.
In turn, it would cause tension for the other baboon, as he experienced the various sensations of his head being ripped from his body.
I also fail to see how any of that fulfills the evolutionary purpose, as announced by Dawkins, of my genes to propagate themselves to the next generation.
In summary, the facts compel me to conclude you and those you cite are making shit up.
You're an idiot. You didn't explain you were talking about two primates of the same species - just you and a baboon.

Here is the explanation:

http://books.google.co.jp/books...

Please stop trying to be so dishonest.
Iron Balls McGente

Fargo, ND

#232036 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Once again, for the slow of mind, I claimed that homosexuality is not a reproductive strategy.
No shet. How long did you do to college to learn that? Do a research paper on that one.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232037 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>

3. Evolutionists do not argue that all behavior is about reproduction.
I never said they did.

I do not think all behavior, World Cup Soccer, for instance, is about reproduction.

Evolutionists DO argue that the purpose of evolution is reproduction - propagating the selfish gene to future generations beyond the death of the individual.

That was my claim, you disputed it, and you are proven wrong:

Richard Dawkins:

"Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

It's a knock-down argument, and you lose.

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Botany Bay

#232038 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm making the opposite claim.
Homosexual sex is not reproductive.
That's my point. Given Darwinian theory, and particularly Dawkins' take on it, it should have evolved to aid reproduction. That's why it does not fit.
Enter: your bull shit.
Never mind, Buck. You could always find yourself a female baboon.

At least that wouldn't be gay.

“Electronic graffiti”

Since: Jun 13

Botany Bay

#232039 Jul 7, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Better - his intellectual better
LOLOL!

Since: May 12

Las Vegas, NV

#232040 Jul 7, 2014
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
"If morals aren't passed down by God", there is little doubt that there is no god and the morality of the bible is quite incompatible with modern life. We no longer think that it is alright to murder an entire village because they do not believe in your version of a god. We no longer believe that it is moral to own another human and to beat them at will. We no longer believe that it is OK to kill off a girls family and then force her into marriage. We no longer believe that a rape victim should be forced to marry her rapist. We no longer believe that killing a bird and then dunking another bird in its blood will cure leprosy.
The bible stories were written by men with limited knowledge of the universe and the world around them, to control those he could con into believing his version of a god.
You take so little from the Bible , and use it to paint the entire text .

I could take one article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , and deem all of Pittsburgh a den of debauchery ..

But , unlike you I'm of sound mind , you people on the left are truly unhinged ..

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232041 Jul 7, 2014
Iron Balls McGente wrote:
<quoted text> No shet. How long did you do to college to learn that? Do a research paper on that one.
She states that science deems homosexual sex is "normal" among primates and humans.

I asked her 5 times to say whether science deems rape normal among primates and humans.

She refuses to answer.

This refusal comes from someone who claims to be a biological anthropologist.

I painted her and her "science" into a corner from which she cannot extricate herself.

So she stands in the corner looking stupid.
CunningLinguist

Ocala, FL

#232042 Jul 7, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said they did.
I do not think all behavior, World Cup Soccer, for instance, is about reproduction.
Evolutionists DO argue that the purpose of evolution is reproduction - propagating the selfish gene to future generations beyond the death of the individual.
That was my claim, you disputed it, and you are proven wrong:
Richard Dawkins:
"Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
It's a knock-down argument, and you lose.
Where is the topix scorecard for winning an argument?

The argument topic was handled 30+ years ago...

http://m.youtube.com/watch...

As I see it this site is nothing more than opinion.

There isn't anything to win and there isn't anything to lose.

"I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch." ~James Watson (Discoverer of DNA)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232043 Jul 7, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>

Never mind, Buck. You could always find yourself a female baboon.
Thanks for volunteering. But no thanks.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#232044 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You seriously need to read that paper. The most salient point in it is here:
"However, it is important to keep in mind that the definitions as presented in the table above are descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is, differences between the sexes are not presumed to be a moral good. Nor is it suggested that "sex differences" are immutable and uninfluenced by cultural socialization. Because behavior is always an interaction of nature and nurture, socialization can modify even significant sex differences—if we so choose."
I read it just fine.

You are avoiding the point again. The distinction between sex and gender is not as defined as you claimed.

Nor am I the one denying the influence of nature.

As to nurture, you are aware of what happens in prisons when no women are available?

I have accurately noted the prrsence of LGBT orientations present in all cultures. Our understanding of the innate aspects of orientation has radically changed in recent years and so shifted the cultural response.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#232045 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
No idea - what kind of change, who's arguing it?
Quit playing blonde.

The demand to stop distinguishing fundamental gender identity.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232046 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>

Clearly you don't really care about understanding why same sex sexual behavior evolved.
What I care about is you introducing a lame rationalization for how it evolved, even though it contradicts the theory you embrace with religious deference.

It reduces your position to materialist, pseudo-scientific crap-peddling.

A theory that explains everything explains nothing.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#232047 Jul 7, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You write that sexual assault is up, then that women and gays are screwing the military by "denying the power of mating behavior."
Your sentence is bizarre to say the least. What precisely do you mean by it?
My point is that mating behavior is the most powerful drive in human nature. To ignore that by mixing orientations in intimate and stressful settings is foolish. We are seeing the results at the expense of national securiity.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#232048 Jul 7, 2014
Rosa_Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>

Wow! I like hearing someone say that.
Thanks, man.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#232049 Jul 7, 2014
number four wrote:
<quoted text>You take so little from the Bible , and use it to paint the entire text .
I could take one article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , and deem all of Pittsburgh a den of debauchery ..
But , unlike you I'm of sound mind , you people on the left are truly unhinged ..
Why don't you tell me where you got your information about the age of consent? I say you just pulled some bullsh!t out of your ass.

Now you wish to claim that only a small part of the bible contains immoral demands from god and that too is bullsh!t. Using your analogy, the last page of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette would be about how nice Pittsburgh really is and that people shouldn't read the first 56 pages.

Then you top it off with trying to insult me. How stupid is that? Maybe I should say, "How christian of you", but we both know that you are not a christian.

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#232050 Jul 7, 2014
Eagle 12 wrote:
How can a 33 year old man, leave his two year old in a hot car while he sat in air conditioning office sexting 16 year olds?
The case in Georgia enrages me. This is what happens when people don’t have a moral compass and do whatever they want.
There’s no fear of God and no fear of judgment. I hope Georgians do the right thing to this narcissistic accused murder.
What sounds screwy to me was why was a child of almost 2 years old, put in a rear facing car seat in the back? That is for infants.

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) 9 min Valerie 1,193,086
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 1 hr HitMan 201,447
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 2 hr Bruin For Life 29,093
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 5 hr cpeter1313 309,000
Kentucky Wildcats Basketball: Kyle Wiltjer Comm... (Sep '10) 5 hr patty sue 5
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 6 hr Quantummist 4,370
Should child beauty pageants be banned? 10 hr squeezers 762
More from around the web