Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't have the emotion invested in it that you do.

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
Why would he worship it? I thought you said he had to be taught those things.
Lay off the weed, IANS. You are getting a little wackier than usual.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
How about some f e cummings - floyd ernie? I sheet you not:
http://www.timekeepingsite.org/poetry.html
Bringing lowbrow culture to everyman.

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes right, you want to live life your way. Funny that, everyone else want’s to live their lives their way, isn’t it a coincidence.
Don’t you know that Muslim and Moslim are interchangeable. I have yet to meet a Muslim who would be offended by either spelling but yes there is some discussion on the spelling.
You don’t actually know much about Muslim society do you? Women and children are highly respected, no matter what you supermarket tabloids tell you.
The veil is worn by choice as a way of showing respect for the Qur’an.
What makes to say I am trying ot make others bow down, I have simply asked you to consider. I.e. open you mind and shed you bigotry.

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
Youthinks is one of your weaker points.
Several multi-year relationships. Not much in the way of one night stands, they aren't so satisfying.
You can feel free to think you will get a piece of her ass by kissing it if it suits you. I'm a bit more realistic about such things.

Oscar Wilde One wrote:

<quoted text>Do you all ever just try to be in touch with your obvious motivations. Like you, your desperate attempts at validation are obvious and you think that Hiding and POLY CAN GIVE IT TO YOU. well they can't, they are on their own desperate path. You are not an evidence based thinker, YOU ALL are "flat earth based" thinker. Now, you will try to argue that, but please explain what has happened in the educational system to change that. They taught the "ape" which used to be you, that it was a fact that the earth was flat. Yes, you all took it as fact, based on what you thought you were observing. I bet you still say that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Well, that is from "flat earth" thinking, and you will argue that it is what you observed.
You also think that science has met you, when in fact it has left you. The irony is that science can not prove anything, but you need the proof to justify your atheism beliefs and Einstein warned all against such juvenile self fulfilling prophesy thinking. What you do is look at the end result and then back track to the result that you want. You know, I do this with taxes. I look at the amount of expenses I need to declare so I can pay a certain amount of taxes, then I defer the rest. Scientists do the exact same thing, so they can get the result that they want.
The problem which science always has is this, they try to be the observer, but the observer becomes part of the observation, once they insert themselves. For instance, if you stumble upon a group of apes in the jungle and they see you, nothing else you observe is natural. You have inserted something unnatural into the equation. None of you "flat earth thinkers" can grasp the reality, that all caged in animals in zoos or pets, are something other than what is natural. The funniest thing that you "flat earth thinkers" do is, you perform experiments on "white mice", when thye are simply mutants that were made by man. Yet, we attempt to amke all these behavioral and scientific observations based on the "white mice".
Now, you carry on, you will always find relevance among the irrelevant.
Continue your journey, circles can be comforting.

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>As for insults, I don’t insult people unless then insult me first.

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>When did I say I wanted a piece of anyone's ass? I don't try to pick people up on topix.
And good for you, I hope that you treated those women better than one would assume based on how you portray yourself on here. I've never seen someone be so dismissive and factitious with other people based solely on their gender.
This is not to say that you are nice to men, you are just *more* condescending when it comes to women. You act like they are all children, and beneath you.

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>When did I say I wanted a piece of anyone's ass? I don't try to pick people up on topix.
And good for you, I hope that you treated those women better than one would assume based on how you portray yourself on here. I've never seen someone be so dismissive and factitious with other people based solely on their gender.
This is not to say that you are nice to men, you are just *more* condescending when it comes to women. You act like they are all children, and beneath you.

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't see how he can run so much after all of that smoking.

Oscar Wilde One wrote:

<quoted text>And I just enjoy watching you gaybots try to cover each others butts. It is cute. We prefer God and you prefer Gay. Isn't choice wonderful.
But, please continue.

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
:-)
I will take a vanilla cone, please.
You confuse real physics with reading about it, sugar plum,

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
You think Christine's bitchiness is a turn on?
I don't judge by their gender, but by how they act.

Oscar Wilde One wrote:

<quoted text>Why are you here lying? Dave has always treated the believer females with much respect, so you are lying. He seems to dismiss you, a male, and Catcher, a male, receives constant dismissal.
So, your confirmation is note, you are here to kiss atheist female butt, in typical weak male fashion. I suspect that you observe that Christian females are less permissive and not easily swayed by your condescending motives. Now, the feelings of you being a child and beneath all, I am certain is not gender inspired, by self inspired. It is you who treats women as inferior, weak and childlike, incapable of standing on their own.

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>You, on the other hand, have subverted the entirety of modern thought in your garage; have formulated theories that fully explain the origins and mechanisms of the universe; and hint at this self evident truth in your postings on topix - however, you are just too laid back to actually make use of this knowledge outside of a forum - despite the fact that, if you wanted to, you could become the most famous and well respected man on the earth. Having "figured it all out," you are content to drop little bits of knowledge on topix, playing the role of a teacher leaving little bread crumbs for his subordinates to eat up eagerly and, should they possess only a fraction of your immense intellect, eventually allow said information to coalesce into a complete theory of everything. At which point they will become too laid back to care about revolutionizing the entire history of scientific thought.
Are you familiar with Erikson's stages of development? Leaving questions of it's accuracy aside, I'd say that you may have "failed" your last stage of development - the consequence of which is a false sense of wisdom and a belief that one has all the answers.

Oscar Wilde One wrote:

<quoted text>Do you all ever just try to be in touch with your obvious motivations. Like you, your desperate attempts at validation are obvious and you think that Hiding and POLY CAN GIVE IT TO YOU. well they can't, they are on their own desperate path. You are not an evidence based thinker, YOU ALL are "flat earth based" thinker. Now, you will try to argue that, but please explain what has happened in the educational system to change that. They taught the "ape" which used to be you, that it was a fact that the earth was flat. Yes, you all took it as fact, based on what you thought you were observing. I bet you still say that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Well, that is from "flat earth" thinking, and you will argue that it is what you observed.

Oscar Wilde One wrote:

<quoted text>What???? Did you think that one through. In fact, many explanations are based on an assumption of the illogical. For instance, it is not logical to assume that inorganic matter suddenly became organic, and decided to stop, yet you do.
The most illogical thing that you do, is try to explain what is based on what you think was, and then taking that conclusion and assigning a "when" to it.

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, I hardly have it all figured out. If I did I wouldn't reveal it, or necessarily put it to use. I play with the cards dealt for now.
I certainly wouldn't use it to empower and breed more idiots.

Oscar Wilde One wrote:

<quoted text>Well, all these squirrels are here trying to get a nut, while the rest just get to be nuts.
I have noticed that to them, evidence is based on getting another squirrel to eat their nuts. It is funny when you post something that busts them, then they try to say that the rebuttal is what they were saying and it actually supports them. The real problem is that they are posting to the lowest common denominator in their crowd, which forms a similar base for them all, so they do not expect their dribble to be discovered.
That was like recently when Hiding fled from here, after she was busted for plagiarizing. They profess intellecutal honesty, but that in itself is a lie for them.