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

“Incorrupta fides, nudaque veri”

Since: May 07

Vincit qui se vincit

#172409 Jul 17, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>We have better teeth.
lol

“Incorrupta fides, nudaque veri”

Since: May 07

Vincit qui se vincit

#172410 Jul 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
The automatic warnings, everyone gets from time to time-- their filters are silly.
But I've heard from other posters, that occasionally they got an actual e-mail warning from the topix moderators.
I've never seen one myself, but I've had PM conversations with other posters who have had.
You should get an all Topix pass or get out of jail free card for possible being the first registered poster on Topix? lol

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172411 Jul 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Moreover, population studies are very clear: you cannot sustain a population with just a single initial breeding pair. The population would have too many fatal defects.
This is all basic biology here.
A specific population can't be sustained by just a single pair. That much is true. But I'm not interested in sustaining. What interests me is how the process starts.

It would seem that you would need two creatures that have reached sexual maturity at the same chronological point in time, in the same location, that they would successfully mate and produce offspring that could also repeat this process. That's what interests me. Where or how do these two biological creatures come into contact at the right place, at the right time, with the optimum health needed to reproduce and carry on?

Since: Mar 11

Surrey Hills, Australia

#172412 Jul 17, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Perhaps what you saw was a piece on how bone marrow is thought to be the silver bullet when it comes to Aids. Bone marrow treatments have given HIV patients some amazing results to be sure.
<quoted text>
No, they said two men no longer have it after the "transplant" not treatment.
Imhotep

Gainesville, FL

#172413 Jul 17, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll rather stay in Sweden (were more democratic than USA)
You have a socialist democracy, a relatively low crime rate, And a higher standard of living!

If I were a swede... I'd stay there too! ;)
Or Norway or Denmark or Finland.

This Swedish rock band reminds me of the USA circa 1950's

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

Boston, MA

#172414 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
A specific population can't be sustained by just a single pair. That much is true. But I'm not interested in sustaining. What interests me is how the process starts.
It would seem that you would need two creatures that have reached sexual maturity at the same chronological point in time, in the same location, that they would successfully mate and produce offspring that could also repeat this process. That's what interests me. Where or how do these two biological creatures come into contact at the right place, at the right time, with the optimum health needed to reproduce and carry on?
It seems as though you're stuck with the single male and single female concept. To me, this is a very childish approach, especially if you realize how evolution operates. Billions of single cell organisms evolving into more complex organisms. Add millions of years and further complexities and our species slowly emerged. That a fully formed male and a fully formed female suddenly and magically came into being, is NOT something a person who accepts evolution can believe. You have said you fully support the process of evolution, how can that be?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172415 Jul 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
The complaints are justified-- the facts show that that your early matthew is a false claim.
On what grounds is it a false claim? There is a growing number of scholars who are starting to take this hypothesis seriously enough to research it. Does that mean we will eventually reach that conclusive verdict? No. But it does warrant at least a fair examination to determine the plausibility. If something is plausible, that means it's believable. The next step after establishing plausibility is to see if it's probable. I don't want to re-write history just to prove a point any more than you would want to. That would be dishonest. But if a historical hypothesis has some merit (plausibility) to it, why not at least investigate it?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Paul's writings were the oldest--
That we're currently aware of. There are some who are convinced that Matthew wrote first. I'm not convinced. But I am fair enough to say that it is worth investigating. If our eternal existence is tied to the gospel accounts of Jesus, isn't it worth at least a fair open-minded examination? If not, then why not? What would we have to lose by such an endeavor?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
and Paul wrote exclusively about spirit or celestial jesus-- never about a flesh-and-blood man.
How did you come to that conclusion? I'd like to know your reasoning for that. If we're going to debate this with intellectual integrity then it seems prudent for me to understand how you reach your conclusion with such confidence to make such a bold assertion.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Since his are the oldest, clearly the Jesus myth started with a magical, "genie-like" jesus, not a man at all.
The man-god was added generations later, as the religion evolved.
Also, is it possible that you're giving too much weight to the issue of who wrote first? Literacy or lack of literacy in a predominantly oral culture doesn't have any bearing on whether or not a specific person existed. If a predominantly oral culture can preserve history over time with very little variation in core details,(meaning almost verbatim) then the matter of contemporary literacy is a moot point.

Another flaw is to suppose that any person who existed is obligated to write something down to prove his or her existence. Are you obligated to write your own autobiography to prove you existed?

And I noticed something else that is more of a personal nature that makes me curious.

Your location reads as Tulsa, Oklahoma. It's the middle of July. You said you are self-employed in the air-conditioning business right? I remember how hot it can get in Oklahoma in July. I was stationed at Fort Sill in 1987. You seem to post a lot. Is business slow right now?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#172416 Jul 17, 2013
Covert Stealth Op wrote:
<quoted text>It sounds like you have organized your religion in your mind, and you rely on our faith that evolution has continued for billions of years. You do this with no evidence, but rely on the faith of those before you. Anytime you get a large group of people together under one banner, evolution, trouble is surely coming to the individual.
Evolution is a fact. When you're able to prove the god you lie to everyone around you about, you will be seen as more respectable person.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#172417 Jul 17, 2013
Covert Stealth Op wrote:
<quoted text>It sounds like you have organized your religion in your mind, and you rely on our faith that evolution has continued for billions of years. You do this with no evidence, but rely on the faith of those before you. Anytime you get a large group of people together under one banner, evolution, trouble is surely coming to the individual.
People who accept the FACT of evolution, do not need faith. Fait is what's needed when no evidence is available. I do not relay solely on the faith of others. If you're talking about the information that is available that supports evolution, that is very different from blindly accepting what another person says is true. I can simple go to the nearest science museum and see the evidence for myself. Apparently you have missed this opportunity, and have avoided any of the mountains of evidence that shows the process of evolution to be a fact. This is called willful ignorance, and is undoubtedly one of the worst traits a human can have. 99.9% of all scientist world-wide accept evolution as factual. There are thousands of articles in reputable scientific journals and peer review papers i support of evolution. Can you guess how many articles have been published in reputable scientific journals refuting the fact of evolution? Thats right...NONE. Ever wonder why that is?

I suggest you go to the library, any one will do, and please so you don't continue to embarrass yourself....READ A SCIENCE BOOK, anyone will do.

“Exercise Your Brain”

Since: Jun 07

Planet Earth

#172418 Jul 17, 2013
Ricky F wrote:
<quoted text>lol, no not at all, I didn't notice at the time since I didn't know you and really I don't know him very well but I've seen him a lot over the years and anyone that can make it this long has my respect! You and I are like twin brothers age wise!
Post count doesn't mean that much anyway, it's the quality not quantity.
Nice to meet you!
Pleased to meet you, too;0)

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172419 Jul 17, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>It seems as though you're stuck with the single male and single female concept. To me, this is a very childish approach, especially if you realize how evolution operates. Billions of single cell organisms evolving into more complex organisms. Add millions of years and further complexities and our species slowly emerged. That a fully formed male and a fully formed female suddenly and magically came into being, is NOT something a person who accepts evolution can believe. You have said you fully support the process of evolution, how can that be?
I support theistic evolution. I know the hypothesis you're advocating, but it doesn't seem logical to me. There must be a point of origin. The entire existence of life didn't just spring into existence from nothing. And it didn't evolve from nothing.

My hypothesis is this:

God exists outside of space-time. He created kinds of creatures that then started to change over a period of time. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think it happened in 6,000 human years. But I don't think it took millions of years either.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#172420 Jul 17, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a socialist democracy, a relatively low crime rate, And a higher standard of living!
If I were a swede... I'd stay there too! ;)
Or Norway or Denmark or Finland.
This Swedish rock band reminds me of the USA circa 1950's
http://m.youtube.com/watch...
getting sick isn't a financial disaster we Have high-cost ceilings that limits the yearly cost for both medical consultations and prescription medication
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#172421 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I support theistic evolution. I know the hypothesis you're advocating, but it doesn't seem logical to me. There must be a point of origin. The entire existence of life didn't just spring into existence from nothing. And it didn't evolve from nothing.
My hypothesis is this:
God exists outside of space-time. He created kinds of creatures that then started to change over a period of time. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think it happened in 6,000 human years. But I don't think it took millions of years either.
You do realize that we humans as well as every living thing are made out of the same basic elements as stars. Helium, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen and Carbon. The fact is, you can make more molecules out of carbon than any other element. Those who believe that we humans are somehow special are unaware of the abundance of elements present in the universe that make us. Far from being special life is most likely inevitable. An inevitable consequence of complex chemistry.

No one, I repeat, NO ONE has ever proposed that life sprang for NOTHING. It is a well know FACT that the building block for life Amino Acids, have been created form a complex mix of chemicals. All evidence point to the fact that life can come from non-life, biogenesis.

If your God is outside of space-time, then it is impossible for you or anyone else to know anything about him. Your further contention that this thing created all life becomes even more absurd. How can something of which you can know nothing, create anything?

The word "kinds" is a religious term, you will not find it in any real science. It's origin sprang for those trying to cram billions of species onto the Ark. Reducing billions of species into "kinds" made the fictitious story more palatable.

If you don't believe evolution took millions of years then you are willfully ignoring the mountains of fossil evidence. You are willfully avoiding the multiple and extremely accurate dating methods science now has. You are avoiding an established body of facts because it clashes with your belief. This in my opinion is a terribly dishonest thing to do. In the beginning you appeared to be an open minded and reasonable individual. Now I'm not so sure. Willful ignorance is a terrible trait. To purposely ignore the years and years of hard work by hundreds of thousands of dedicated scientists, is shameful.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#172423 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I support theistic evolution. I know the hypothesis you're advocating, but it doesn't seem logical to me. There must be a point of origin. The entire existence of life didn't just spring into existence from nothing. And it didn't evolve from nothing.
My hypothesis is this:
God exists outside of space-time. He created kinds of creatures that then started to change over a period of time. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think it happened in 6,000 human years. But I don't think it took millions of years either.
BTW, you do not have a hypothesis, you have ONLY an unsupported belief.......Hypothesis....... "A proposed explanation made on the basis of limited EVIDENCE as a starting point of further investigation." You have NO EVIDENCE in which to base your hypothesis on, only a belief. The word hypothesis has its origin in science.
blacklagoon

Boston, MA

#172424 Jul 17, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I support theistic evolution. I know the hypothesis you're advocating, but it doesn't seem logical to me. There must be a point of origin. The entire existence of life didn't just spring into existence from nothing. And it didn't evolve from nothing.
My hypothesis is this:
God exists outside of space-time. He created kinds of creatures that then started to change over a period of time. I'm not a young earth creationist. I don't think it happened in 6,000 human years. But I don't think it took millions of years either.
You don't think it took millions of years because.......... You have evidence to the contrary? That would be the only reason you don't believe in established facts, or because your religious beliefs would be compromised. Which is it?
Imhotep

Gainesville, FL

#172425 Jul 17, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
getting sick isn't a financial disaster we Have high-cost ceilings that limits the yearly cost for both medical consultations and prescription medication
Okay... keep making me jealous!

We have Extended family living in Amsterdam and Paris. We love Scandinavia and have traveled there several times.

The Netherlands takes about 53% of your income but that includes all your medical needs, and prescriptions, etc.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#172426 Jul 17, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay... keep making me jealous!
We have Extended family living in Amsterdam and Paris. We love Scandinavia and have traveled there several times.
The Netherlands takes about 53% of your income but that includes all your medical needs, and prescriptions, etc.
when the sealing is reached you'll get a free card :)

i have my extended family in finland,sweden,germany
Imhotep

Gainesville, FL

#172427 Jul 17, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
when the sealing is reached you'll get a free card :)
i have my extended family in finland,sweden,germany
I highly recommend a trip on theThe Flåm Railway in Norway. Magnificent - pure eye candy!

Ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch und haben ein paar entfernte Verwandte aus München.

Sie sprechen kein Deutsch?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172428 Jul 17, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
If your God is outside of space-time, then it is impossible for you or anyone else to know anything about him. Your further contention that this thing created all life becomes even more absurd. How can something of which you can know nothing, create anything?
If God created everything, including space-time, then wouldn't such a deity be independent of space-time as we know it, and therefore be able to interject and withdraw at his discretion?
blacklagoon wrote:
The word "kinds" is a religious term, you will not find it in any real science.
That's funny, I thought "kinds" was an English word meaning:

a. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort: different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics.
b. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color.

a. Underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.
b. The natural order or course of things; nature.
c. Manner or fashion.
blacklagoon wrote:
It's origin sprang for those trying to cram billions of species onto the Ark. Reducing billions of species into "kinds" made the fictitious story more palatable.
How do you come to that absurd conclusion If you're insinuating that I believe there was a global flood, you're making an assumption. DO I believe there was a flood?? Kinds as described in the flood account wasn't referring to species or biological categories, but rather clean and unclean varieties. Sea animals, birds, and aquatic mammals didn't need to be brought on board. My understanding is that there weren't a lot of animals on board the ark. That belief only exists in the minds of those who interpret the story in it's most literal sense. Do I believe there was a large catastrophic flood? Yes. Do I believe it was global? No. The Hebrew word "kol erets" can mean regional or local land.
blacklagoon wrote:
If you don't believe evolution took millions of years then you are willfully ignoring the mountains of fossil evidence. You are willfully avoiding the multiple and extremely accurate dating methods science now has. You are avoiding an established body of facts because it clashes with your belief.
How can you make an accurate judgement of what I believe without further inquiry? I am simply not convinced that the evidence presented by proponents of Darwinian evolution indicates purely unguided evolutionary processes.

I have to ask if you're assuming that I'm avoiding what you call facts to avoid clashing with my beliefs, because in reality, you could be doing the very same thing. Allegations like that can easily swing both ways. I'm honestly telling you that the evidence I see proposed for purely evolutionary processes isn't compelling enough to adopt the atheistic worldview. That would indeed require more faith than the worldview I currently subscribe to.
blacklagoon wrote:
In the beginning you appeared to be an open minded and reasonable individual. Now I'm not so sure. Willful ignorance is a terrible trait. To purposely ignore the years and years of hard work by hundreds of thousands of dedicated scientists, is shameful.
Why would you say I'm not open-minded and reasonable? Because I disagree with you? Isn't that intolerant? I happen to think I'm very open minded. I consider the full weight of an argument. There are very intelligent scientists of both beliefs working in labs and institutes all over the world. Their work is admirable. I wouldn't ignore it. To ignore all of it would be folly. Open minded means considering both natural and supernatural explanations and examining each on it's own merit. You seem to think that I should only consider naturalistic explanations. Is that open minded?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172429 Jul 17, 2013
blacklagoon wrote:
<quoted text>You don't think it took millions of years because.......... You have evidence to the contrary? That would be the only reason you don't believe in established facts, or because your religious beliefs would be compromised. Which is it?
I'm not sure that carbon dating is as accurate as it's made out to be. This isn't to say that it's chaotic or useless, but I think that it's like any other tool. It has it's limits. Like other tools, it can be misused. It can be misread. It can be either knowingly or mistakenly misconstrued. I'm not ready to dismiss it as useless, but neither am I ready to say that it answers every scientific question regarding age with complete unquestionable accuracy.

Your "either/or" challenge fails in that regard. I can hold both beliefs and still be honest in my analysis.

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) 10 min Bluestater 1,173,430
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 21 min greyviper 3,137
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr Brian_G 307,991
UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr Steve Alford 28,724
Should child beauty pageants be banned? Tue Pinoyboyguy 734
I got my loan from stephenloanhelp@hotmail.com (Jun '13) Jan 24 RICK SERVICE 32
San Diego State hoping Dwayne Polee II gets a shot Jan 23 alanparkcity 1
More from around the web