Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Full story: Webbunny tumblelog

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.

Comments (Page 9,689)

Showing posts 193,761 - 193,780 of223,217
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202013
Jan 12, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
If your purpose is divorce the ID movement from the Discovery Institute and its stated social and political agenda to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and to "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God," you've got an uphill battle ahead. It's going to be as difficult as convincing people that the intelligent designer isn't the "God" mentioned.
I don't think it's an uphill battle.

Discussing a "movement" is vague.

Biologists, chemists, and mathematicians who work on intelligent design pursue scientific and academic discovery.

The Discovery Institute pursues a distinguishable agenda from that, including culture, economics and business, international affairs, local government, and religion.

I have no need to divorce them. I have no need to do anything with them, since they are two different endeavors with some overlapping interests.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202014
Jan 12, 2014
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>-B [square root] AC
__________
2A
Have to give you a C- on that one. It is not "[square root] AC", but [square root](B^2 - 4AC).

At least, I assume you were aiming for the quadratic formula.

BTW Buck, can you prove the result? I can.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202015
Jan 12, 2014
 
Greens - Tuf wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that Buck should now define what "straight" means.
Is it possible?
Let's see.:)
I didn't say "straight".

DS supplied that.

Which are you; stupid, or trying to appear stupid?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202016
Jan 12, 2014
 
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. Your point?
Barton said that the Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine in particular, HAD debated creationism v. evolution...decades before Darwin's theory was published. Without the knowledge and data that was later gathered, one can hardly come to a definitive conclusion on evolution. But Barton says they had.
That is, Barton lied...or else was so ignorant on the subject he hadn't a clue what he was talking about. In either case, he failed to demonstrate the expertise in history that you claim he has.
Oops.
That is incredibly stupid.

"definitive conclusion"?? There still is no definitive conclusion.

I just showed you people who came to conclusions on evolution hundreds of years before Darwin.

But Thomas Paine and others could not debate it and decide what their view was????

And so that makes Barton a liar?

Give up. You have nothing.

This may be your dumbest contention yet. And it's a high bar.

Professor,...Bwhahahahahahaha. ..

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202017
Jan 12, 2014
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The Germans did win at first, in Russia and Africa, but several things happened to turn around the Russian front, the PPSh-41 the T-34 -85s were mass produced.
These had a 76 mm gun that could destroy a panzer.
Montgomery suffered high casualties but brought Rommel down . If numbers are a testament ,allies produced up to 10x the panzer numbers and swarmed them sometimes losing 10-1 but the easy to produce and ship mass production swarm the panzer strategy worked.
Er...um...the T-34/85 had an 85 mm gun, hence the "85".

The T-34/76, the early models of the T-34 were a big shock to the Germans. They were faster and better armored than the German Pz III's, the main German battle tank in 1941. And they T-34 had a 76 mm gun as opposed to a 50 mm on the German tanks.

The only thing that allowed the Germans to win against this superior tank was that the level of training for the Russians at the start of the war was really bad. The later model, the T-34/85 didn't match the German Panther, but was produced in vastly greater quantities. Only about 5,000 Panthers were produced, and those had to be split between the eastern and western fronts. The Russians built over 25,000 T-34/85s.

BTW...I recently read a book title "Armored Thunderbolt" about the M4 Sherman. Quite interesting. The Sherman was an ass-kicking tank when it first appeared in 1942. At least the equal of the T-34...and given the Sherman's reliability one could consider it the better tank. But by 1944, very little had been done to improve the Sherman. In the meantime, the Germans had greatly improved their tanks. The Sherman is bad-mouthed by a lot of historians, but I think they are looking only at the last year of the war.

In the Pacific, the Sherman was king. The Japanese never had a tank that came anywhere near its capabilities.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202018
Jan 12, 2014
 
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck, do you still believe in the infinite centers of pennies?
Nobody said that.

You are lying.

Do you still believe Thomas Paine could not debate evolution before Darwin?

Even though Plato debated it?

Bwahahahahahahhahahahha....

And if someone says Paine did, he's a liar. Right?

Bwwahahhahahahhaha...

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202019
Jan 12, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
True. Darwin's SumpPump thinks if you identify a relational concept like "center", "left", "right", or a "point", then that is an existing physical entity.
That's why he thinks infinite slices of pizza can be put in one 12' box.
.. the pizza box is a closed system ..

.. ultimately, are we debating whether the universe is an open or closed system? I'm totally lost, too many abstracts to grasp ..

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202020
Jan 12, 2014
 
Alice wrote:
<quoted text>
it does not matter that Hitler was a christian.
What matters is that he lead a christian Nation, and the immoral pigs followed him committing horrific crimes much like christians did during the inquisition.
So he imprisoned and killed them for following him?

Sure. Got it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202021
Jan 12, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, you really have to wonder just what is going on in the minds of godbots like lightbeamrider and bongo, buying into all the nonsense Buck writes.
Maybe THAT is why Buck posts here. It is the only place he can find people stupid enough to believe his BS.
I conclude from being on this thread the the quantity of hate people will pour onto a person is directly proportional to his effectiveness at annihilating their arguments.

Let it roll, boys.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202022
Jan 12, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he did not say that.
You are lying.
What he said, Buck, was...
Dave Nelson wrote:
...you have an infinite center...
So, yes he did say that. So who is lying?

And you responded...
Buck Crick wrote:
Congratulations, Dave.
What's the matter, Buck. That OCD compel you to open your mouth and insert your foot? Again?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202023
Jan 12, 2014
 
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Have to give you a C- on that one. It is not "[square root] AC", but [square root](B^2 - 4AC).
At least, I assume you were aiming for the quadratic formula.
BTW Buck, can you prove the result? I can.
+
Yes. Bollixed it up again.

I used to could get the deriviative from algebraic principles...

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202024
Jan 12, 2014
 
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. the pizza box is a closed system ..
.. ultimately, are we debating whether the universe is an open or closed system? I'm totally lost, too many abstracts to grasp ..
The BBT, and thus universe, is a closed system. This was derived from observation based upon the laws of thermodynamics as directly observed and measured on this planet. Some of those assumptions are applied to the pinpoints of light being lensed through our atmosphere.

There is no place for us to stand and observe the whole thingy. Just observations and interpretations based upon what is at hand. Religion and science share some weaknesses.

Not that it stops people going off on tangents in their beliefs.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202026
Jan 12, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lightbeamrider wrote:
When it comes to God your so called open mind slams shut.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Which god is "God" to you? Jesus? It would help if you would identify your god. I don't agree that Jesus is a god. Nor Yahweh, nor YHWH, nor Jehovah. Did you mean one of those? If so,what can you offer an evidence based thinker in support of any of those?
Buck Crick wrote:
Lightbeamrider will not catch the trick you just pulled.bFor rhetorical purposes, you shifted the argument from god as a conceptual term to one of historical storytelling by asking for a name - Jesus, Yahweh, etc. Once you achieve that shift, you can then go about attacking the inerrancy of scriptural descriptions and mythologies. It's the old "which god" trick. You execute the ruse much more skillfully than most Topix atheists. Your evidence-based pose is thus preserved, nonetheless, by trickery.
No trick there, Buck. I was accused of having a closed mind about "God," and I just wanted to clarify that he meant the Christian god, and for a good reason - how to respond.

My mind is open to gods in the generic sense, but not to the Christian bible god. That is, I will look at and consider as impartially as I can any evidence for the existence of a god or gods, but if I ever find any, I will not look to Christianity or its bible for answers about the nature of that god. That god can be ruled out, and has.

I have no tricks and need none. There is nothing that I believe or want to say that I cannot be forthcoming about. Nothing. I have zero use for deceit. And I'm far from alone here. I see the exact same values and habits in many of my fellow posters. They're the values of academia.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202027
Jan 12, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No trick there, Buck. I was accused of having a closed mind about "God," and I just wanted to clarify that he meant the Christian god, and for a good reason - how to respond.
My mind is open to gods in the generic sense, but not to the Christian bible god. That is, I will look at and consider as impartially as I can any evidence for the existence of a god or gods, but if I ever find any, I will not look to Christianity or its bible for answers about the nature of that god. That god can be ruled out, and has.
I have no tricks and need none. There is nothing that I believe or want to say that I cannot be forthcoming about. Nothing. I have zero use for deceit. And I'm far from alone here. I see the exact same values and habits in many of my fellow posters. They're the values of academia.
Academia used to believe in Yahweh, Jesus, Zeus, Jupiter, and a host of others. Why not no god? That was even done in the past, too.

Interesting thing about the Bible god story is how incredibly complex and conflicting it is. There is no other like it. There was no single writer. No conspiracy built into those original accounts. A collection of stories and testimonies for the purpose of review and editing by others afterwards.

But something initiated those stories.

Your neo-atheism has been transmitted to you via mass media, IANS. You trust a few with axes to grind over age old stories.

Create controversy and recruit the disaffected you encouraged.

Rope a dope.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202028
Jan 12, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Some scrap of pseudo history?
His troops were Christian?
Did you realize, you simpering fool, that the Nazis decreed that their soldiers could not read the Bible or attend Christian services?
__________
Does David Barton write for The New York Times?
Word for Word/The Case Against the Nazis; How Hitler's Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity
By JOE SHARKEY
Published: January 13, 2002
"... includes a 108-page outline prepared by O.S.S. investigators to aid Nuremberg prosecutors. The outline,''The Persecution of the Christian Churches,'' summarizes the Nazi plan to subvert and destroy German Christianity, which it calls ''an integral part of the National Socialist scheme of world conquest.''
__________
You dumbFuck, simple-minded moron, I have proved my point on this at least a half dozen times, documented and airtight.
If you have no better lies to offer in your quest for discrediting me, you should give up. Because you are making a complete ass of yourself.
Which you richly deserve.
Three words, Buck. "GOTT MIT UNS". In English, "God With Us".

If you want to go further, consider the oath Wehrmacht officers had to give to Hitler..."I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath." Notice the "I swear by God..." part?

And, no, the Nazis did not decree "that their soldiers could not read the Bible or attend Christian services". The German Army was heavily (very heavily) Christian, split pretty much evenly between Catholics and Lutherans. Can you imagine the mutiny that would have happened?

BTW...I tried Googling this. I got precisely ZERO hits.

As for Barton, did you even notice that I said "maybe"?

Of course you didn't. Because that way you could continue your rant. And you don't do qualifiers, do you? It's all black and white with you.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202029
Jan 12, 2014
 
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. your logic is confusing me ..
.. if the theory of infinity is imaginary, God cannot be infinite. How do you separate an infinite God from the concept of infinity ??..
.. your argument against infinity seems to reject the very idea of an infinite God. I'm lost ..
Buck isn't very good at thinking things through.

And I don't blame you for being confused. What Buck has written on infinity is very muddled.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202030
Jan 12, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That is incredibly stupid.
"definitive conclusion"?? There still is no definitive conclusion.
But Barton claims the Founding Fathers had come to one. And you just confirmed what I had said, that they could not have.

BTW...previous to the publishing of On the Origin of Species, there was no real debate on evolution. Only a very few people, almost all of them natural philosophers (the term scientist had yet to be invented) even had the subject on their radar. It was a non-issue. Creationism was the default setting and virtually no one though otherwise.

Until 1859.

So that really makes Barton's statements about the Founding Fathers and evolution rather inane, doesn't it?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202031
Jan 12, 2014
 
Buck Crick wrote:
Addition to any finite gives a finite, no matter how many times you do it. He has read a little bit of theoretical math, which uses infinity in comparative concepts such as sets and cardinalities, and thinks it involves the real world.
Does an instant in time at a location in space exist? If so, how many can you squeeze in between here now, and there then?
Buck Crick wrote:
Infinity is an imaginary idea.


So is zero. So are negative and complex numbers. So is pi. Are they representative of aspects of reality? They are all used to describe and predict reality.

If they are, why would calling infinity an imaginary idea disqualify it from representing an aspect of reality as well?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202032
Jan 12, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody said that.
You are lying.
Do you still believe Thomas Paine could not debate evolution before Darwin?
Even though Plato debated it?
Bwahahahahahahhahahahha....
And if someone says Paine did, he's a liar. Right?
Bwwahahhahahahhaha...
Dave did. And you agreed with him.

As for Plato and Paine...no they did not debate evolution in the modern sense. And if you bother to listen to what Barton is saying, he implies that the Founding Fathers DID debate it in the modern sense. He was telling his rubes, "Creationism True, Evolution False,'Cause the Founding Fathers Said So."

Gawd, Buck, but you are a perfect example of a sheeple. Barton barks and you follow.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#202033
Jan 12, 2014
 
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Watched a lecture by a noted Rabbi. He said that in (current) Judaic tradition, God is constrained by the laws of the Universe He created. In essence, YHWY is not super-natural but supra-natural.
I guess that's ultra-reform Judaism.

Silly god to set it up that way though.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 193,761 - 193,780 of223,217
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••